I read the book Game Change, by John Hellemann and Mark Halperin a year ago, long before it became a TV movie.
In fact, I wrote about it in this blog:
Click.
I was a little bit surprised by the direction the TV movie took. The book looks at several "game changing" moments, and the title seems to refer to them all generically. On the Democratic side there was the libidinous self-destruction of the once-formidable populist candidate John Edwards, for example (hasn't anyone made a TV movie out of that yet?). There was a debate in Philadelphia in October 2007 when Hillary stumbled badly in her handling of an immigration-related question. Hellemann and Halperin make the case that this undermined her status as the front-runner.
Meanwhile, on the Republican side, one of the game changers was the indictment of Bernard Kerik, a Giuliani protege, which they see as devastating to Giuliani's nomination campaign.
After the two nomination fights were setled, there are two further game changers of note. One was the selection of Sarah Palin. The other -- the final deciding change -- was the Lehman bankruptcy and resulting stock market crash.
Their book takes in all of this. And a good deal more (as you can gather if you follow the above link to my earlier discussion).
For the movie, most of it has dropped away, and the screenwriters seem to have focused exclusively on the McCain-Palin dynamic.
That is the nature of Hollywood. Screenwriters simply, intensify the focus, limit the expostion, etc. There is no reason to complain about it, but perhaps a mini-series might have delved into the whole of the 'game' and its many changes.
In 2008 the incumbent could not run again, so the winter/spring campaign was double barrelled. This year of course that is not the case, the obvious winter/spring dramatics are so far all on the Republican side.
About this week's round of voting, where Santorum won the two critical states (Alabama and Mississippi) I have a couple of thoughts. First, the "cheesy grits" thing surely hurt Romney. I gather that real grits-eaters would have said "cheese grits." Also, real grits-eaters would have respected a non-grits eater who didn't pretend to be a grits eater. But Romney fell into neither of those two respectable categories.
Second, these results finally mean that Gingrich is an irrelevance, whether he chooses to get out now or nort. Santorum is the anti-Romney hereafter. Not Gingrich and not Paul. One can hope that Santorum, as such, will now develop enough strength to force a deadlock at the convention, in which case something interesting may happen there!
P.S. STILL NO DAMNED SOUND CARD!!!!! What is up with that?
NOON UPDATE: I now have a sound card, and sound. Working will no longer feel like burying myself in the cone of silence. Yeah!
Showing posts with label John Edwards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Edwards. Show all posts
16 March 2012
16 April 2010
Pulitzer Prize
One of the Pulitzer Prizes given out earlier this week went to what I consider a very deserving recipient -- that Pro Publica piece on the life-or-death choices that had to be made at a New Orleans hospital in the post-Katrina environment.
Just contemplating the situation makes me sick, and I have nothing but respect for the professionals who had to live through it and deal with it. Prosecutors sought to criminalize their decisions, but a grand jury refused to indict. That is a remarkable story in itself, given the old rule about the indictment of a ham sandwich.
On some of the political sites in this internet thingy, though, there seems to be some unhappiness that the National Enquirer didn't get that award, especially for the investigation that led to the disclosure of John Edwards' dalliance with his campaign videographer, and the child that resulted from same.
One columnist has proposed a special new prize for such stories. Inquiring minds want to know about future prizes!
Anyway: congrats to Sheri Fink and the others involved for their story reviewing the whole matter carefully. Even if it does allow some to yell, "The Pulitzer is for Finks!"
Just contemplating the situation makes me sick, and I have nothing but respect for the professionals who had to live through it and deal with it. Prosecutors sought to criminalize their decisions, but a grand jury refused to indict. That is a remarkable story in itself, given the old rule about the indictment of a ham sandwich.
On some of the political sites in this internet thingy, though, there seems to be some unhappiness that the National Enquirer didn't get that award, especially for the investigation that led to the disclosure of John Edwards' dalliance with his campaign videographer, and the child that resulted from same.
One columnist has proposed a special new prize for such stories. Inquiring minds want to know about future prizes!
Anyway: congrats to Sheri Fink and the others involved for their story reviewing the whole matter carefully. Even if it does allow some to yell, "The Pulitzer is for Finks!"
26 February 2010
Impulse purchase
While at the grocery store today (a big grocery store, with a small books-and-magazines section) in a classic impulse purchase I acquired The Politician, the new memoir by Andrew Young.
This isn't the Andrew Young who served as US ambassador to the UN during the Carter administration. This is the other one -- once a key aide to former North Carolina Senator and presidential candidate John Edwards. Talk about dedication -- Young was so willing to serve in any capacity that he admitted to a paternity that was not his -- he claimed to have been the father of the baby of Rielle Hunter, his boss' mistress.
Here's a randomly selected passage from the book, just as a sort of recent-history flashback, from the final days of December 2006:
"While Mrs Edwards, and much of America, spent the quiet days before the start of the New Year cleaning up wrapping paper and putting away ornaments,Senator Edwards jetted off to New Orleans, where deadtrees and hurricane ravaged homes in the Lower Ninth Ward would serve as the backdrop for a speech announcing the start of his presidential campaign. (Two weeks earlier, Joe Klein of Time magazine had heralded Edwards as the front-runner [for the nomination], with a two-to-one lead in the polls over Hillary Clinton, his nearest competitor.) Although he still mentioned the 'two Americas,' rich and poor, most of what Edwards said in New Orleans focused on the Bush administration's post-Katrina failures, his call for withdrawing troops from Iraq, and proposals for dealing with global warming and America's dependence on foreign oil."
Ah, memories. As Young goes on to tell us, these were boilerplate points to make for the folks running for the Democratic Party's nomination at that timne. But backdrop was important. The visuals.
And the task of properly capturing that backdrop was left up not merely to the attendent members of the fourth estate, but to the campaign videographer -- who, as it happens, was Rielle Hunter. On the day of the above-described press conference, Young places Rielle in the thick of things, doing her job. Then he adds, "If anyone in the press saw something unusual in the way Rielle interacted with Edwards, it wasn't reported. But Rielle had awakened that morning in the Senator's room at the luxurious Loews hotel, where, she later told me, she 'felt just like his First Lady.'"
This isn't the Andrew Young who served as US ambassador to the UN during the Carter administration. This is the other one -- once a key aide to former North Carolina Senator and presidential candidate John Edwards. Talk about dedication -- Young was so willing to serve in any capacity that he admitted to a paternity that was not his -- he claimed to have been the father of the baby of Rielle Hunter, his boss' mistress.
Here's a randomly selected passage from the book, just as a sort of recent-history flashback, from the final days of December 2006:
"While Mrs Edwards, and much of America, spent the quiet days before the start of the New Year cleaning up wrapping paper and putting away ornaments,Senator Edwards jetted off to New Orleans, where deadtrees and hurricane ravaged homes in the Lower Ninth Ward would serve as the backdrop for a speech announcing the start of his presidential campaign. (Two weeks earlier, Joe Klein of Time magazine had heralded Edwards as the front-runner [for the nomination], with a two-to-one lead in the polls over Hillary Clinton, his nearest competitor.) Although he still mentioned the 'two Americas,' rich and poor, most of what Edwards said in New Orleans focused on the Bush administration's post-Katrina failures, his call for withdrawing troops from Iraq, and proposals for dealing with global warming and America's dependence on foreign oil."
Ah, memories. As Young goes on to tell us, these were boilerplate points to make for the folks running for the Democratic Party's nomination at that timne. But backdrop was important. The visuals.
And the task of properly capturing that backdrop was left up not merely to the attendent members of the fourth estate, but to the campaign videographer -- who, as it happens, was Rielle Hunter. On the day of the above-described press conference, Young places Rielle in the thick of things, doing her job. Then he adds, "If anyone in the press saw something unusual in the way Rielle interacted with Edwards, it wasn't reported. But Rielle had awakened that morning in the Senator's room at the luxurious Loews hotel, where, she later told me, she 'felt just like his First Lady.'"
05 January 2008
The Iowa Caucus
Despite my feeling of philosophical detachment, I admit I retain what one might call an anthropological interest in the internal politics of the two major parties of the U.S.
Allow me, then, a few words about the caucus this week, amidst all the noise of celebration and dismay.
On the Democratic side, the results amount to less than may meet the eye. Yes, they weakened Senator Clinton, because some of her appeal had been the sense of inevitability itself. And one can't keep the cloak of inevitability around one's shoulders while coming in third. In anything.
Still, its at most a flesh wound. She still has money, organization, a famous name, and the promise of reviving an era to which many Americans already look back with fondness.
If Edwards had come in first in Iowa, I would have written the above two paragraphs just as I have. But I would have added on to them, without scare quotes, something like this: "and she's also a woman, which gives her campaign a let's make history together appeal that Edwards frankly can't match -- her sex and her insider status together making for a formidable inside/outside combo."
But Edwards didn't come in first. Barack Obama did. And he can certainly match the "let's make history together" appeal, so in the present circumstances she can't count that as one of her assets.
Still, there are only three candidates who count right now on the Democratic side. The rest are dropping away. Triangular debates might be a better show than the over-crowded ones we've so far seen.
On the Republican side, I think the rise of Mike Huckabee is an amazing story, that might make the proper chronicler -- if there's a Theodore White at his side -- ecstatic.
But we should remember that the ethanol lobby has veto power over any Republican caucus efforts in Iowa, and we should inwardly congratulate Ron Paul and John McCain. Each took a principled stand against ethanol subsidies, and each effectively punted this caucus as a result. On to New Hampshire and the rest of the country, folks!
Allow me, then, a few words about the caucus this week, amidst all the noise of celebration and dismay.
On the Democratic side, the results amount to less than may meet the eye. Yes, they weakened Senator Clinton, because some of her appeal had been the sense of inevitability itself. And one can't keep the cloak of inevitability around one's shoulders while coming in third. In anything.
Still, its at most a flesh wound. She still has money, organization, a famous name, and the promise of reviving an era to which many Americans already look back with fondness.
If Edwards had come in first in Iowa, I would have written the above two paragraphs just as I have. But I would have added on to them, without scare quotes, something like this: "and she's also a woman, which gives her campaign a let's make history together appeal that Edwards frankly can't match -- her sex and her insider status together making for a formidable inside/outside combo."
But Edwards didn't come in first. Barack Obama did. And he can certainly match the "let's make history together" appeal, so in the present circumstances she can't count that as one of her assets.
Still, there are only three candidates who count right now on the Democratic side. The rest are dropping away. Triangular debates might be a better show than the over-crowded ones we've so far seen.
On the Republican side, I think the rise of Mike Huckabee is an amazing story, that might make the proper chronicler -- if there's a Theodore White at his side -- ecstatic.
But we should remember that the ethanol lobby has veto power over any Republican caucus efforts in Iowa, and we should inwardly congratulate Ron Paul and John McCain. Each took a principled stand against ethanol subsidies, and each effectively punted this caucus as a result. On to New Hampshire and the rest of the country, folks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
