Watching • Video Digest: March 7, 2008

Since today marks the first round of the 2008 Tournament of Books, we figured we’d have a literary discussion about movies. All us hardcore readers know the book is always better. It’s an unquestionable fact. Except, of course, when the movie reinterprets the book so well that a familiar story seems new again, or—pardon my sacrilege—when the film turns out better than the book.

We asked some of our favorite book bloggers to give us a hand. What, we asked them, is your favorite movie adapted from a book? Turns out they had all kinds of suggestions.


* * *

There Will Be Blood, directed by P.T. Anderson, based on the novel Oil! by Upton Sinclair

This year’s competition for best movie adaptation was as fierce and multifarious as the Rooster itself. While I enjoyed the Coens’ faithfulness to McCarthy, and marveled at the freedom Julian Schnabel found in a memoir of immobility (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly), my favorite was the Upton Sinclair adaptation: There Will Be Blood. P.T. Anderson shoots like a novelist should write: no cumbersome back stories, no pieties, no artificial “arc”: just the relentless evocation (invocation?) of life. —Garth Risk Hallberg, The Millions

Deliverance, directed by John Boorman, based on the novel by James Dickey

Deliverance was a powerful novel, yet even the starring presence of Burt Reynolds could not dim the brilliant film version, which sticks close to Dickey’s primal modern-man-vs.-hillbilly plot and adds two great things: beautiful river photography and the wonderful, wonderful “Dueling Banjos” scene, a pristine moment of perfect cinema. It’s also a notable fact that the author of this tough-guy story is best known as a poet (and he appears as the sheriff at the end). —Levi Asher, Literary Kicks

Mysterious Skin, directed by Gregg Araki, based on the novel by Scott Heim

Araki manages to capture beautifully the DayGlo, shoegazing haze of mid-’90 teenage life on the fringe in small-town America. The film manages to perfectly depict all of the delicate, complex, disturbing, heartwarming, and harrowing elements of Scott Heim’s haunting and quietly astonishing coming-of-age novel—set in a world that is as bleak as it is breathtaking. With a soundtrack that features music by Syd Barrett, Cocteau Twins, Ride, and Sigur Rós, we have a requiem that perfectly melds Araki’s vision with Heim’s voice. —Joe Chappell, Book Passage

The Last of the Mohicans, directed by Michael Mann, based on the novel by James Fenimore Cooper

Generally, the film versions of books provide only one pleasure: complaining about how bad they are when compared to the source material. That’s why I have a deep interest in those movies that turn bad books into art. The Godfather, The Thin Man, Fight Club. All excellent, but my favorite is The Last of the Mohicans. I don’t know what James Fenimore Cooper had in mind when he wrote it, but it was something far, far less entertaining than Michael Mann’s exhilarating adaptation. From the first, thrilling scene to the tragic finale, Mann’s film brings Cooper’s book to life in ways that will astound those who have endured the original. Note: This four-minute clip is of a violent ambush; gore is minimal at most. —Ben Dooley, The Millions

To Kill a Mockingbird, directed by Robert Mulligan, based on the novel by Harper Lee

Battlefield Earth—best movie ever! Kidding. I’m going to cheat by saying To Kill a Mockingbird. I saw it again recently. I’m amazed each time by the performances of Gregory Peck and Mary Badham. I read the book at a young age and saw the movie soon after that. It was the first time I made the connection between the written word and a movie. How powerful, I thought, and how cool. It was the book in my head coming to life. —Megan Sullivan, Bookdwarf

A Clockwork Orange, directed by Stanley Kubrick, based on the novel by Anthony Burgess

I read it before I saw it. How, I wondered, could this film possibly capture the audacious new language invented by Anthony Burgess? What kind of actor could bring Alex to life? How could it go beyond literary adaptation, and be that rare thing that explodes on the screen and reaches into you, viscerally, as cinema? Well, Stanley Kubrick’s masterpiece succeeds on all points. Thanks in part to Malcolm McDowell’s Alex, to Kubrick’s uncompromising visual sense, and, well, to Beethoven, A Clockwork Orange is not merely a faithful adaptation, it’s powerful cinema. —Andrew Saikali, The Globe and Mail, The Millions

Tony Takitani, directed by Jun Ichikawa, based on the story by Haruki Murakami

Jun Ichikawa’s adaptation of “Tony Takitani,” a story by Haruki Murakami: It doesn’t get more bleak and soul-crushing. Takitani, an illustrator, grows up in a life of contented solitude, without emotional attachments. He doesn’t yearn for connection until a beautiful woman enters his office, and he’s immediately attracted, realizing what he was lacking. She is his match, but her obsession with clothing—and his questioning that need—lead to tragedy. The music, the panning of the camera, the understated performances—all perfect. —Matthew Tiffany, Condalmo

Wonder Boys, directed by Curtis Hanson, based on the novel by Michael Chabon

I like this movie so much that I don’t really want to read Chabon’s novel. In the film, Michael Douglas memorably dons a pink bathrobe and ample stubble as Grady Tripp, a washed up prof seven years into a novel that seems only to get longer. But then his wife leaves him and he finds out his mistress/boss is pregnant, setting in motion a wild weekend that features pre-Spider-Man Tobey Maguire and pre-Tom Cruise Katie Holmes, not to mention Marilyn Monroe’s missing jacket, a dead, blind dog, and a woman named Oola. It’s dark, funny, and literary. —C. Max Magee, The Millions



 —Meave Gallagher, Mar. 7, 2008

SHARE THIS • EMAIL THIS

Watching • Video Digest: February 29, 2008

I would like to dedicate this digest to a colleague, whose fascination with Cuba began with his “first sight of Fidel Castro and his bearded cohort during the early and triumphant moments of the Cuban revolution.” I think I understand now.

El Comandante en Jefe has been in power since 1959. After hundreds of attempts on his life, and at 81 years old, he says, OK guys, my brother’s got this; I’m in the study when you need me. Amazing.

I was born in the early ‘80s, and if I learned anything about Cuba in school, it was a distillation of more than 20 years of thwarted invasion, nuclear showdown, and endless anti-communist propaganda. Right, and cigars. Public school education ignored it; in college, I learned people will put Che’s face anywhere, on anything. On Feb. 19, when Fidel announced he would no longer hold office, I thought, here’s another historical icon I know nothing about. A vague feeling of dislike and a plan to see that movie about the Cuban poet with Johnny Depp in a dress—these things are neither knowledge nor understanding.

Hours of research later, I’ve cobbled together a highlights reel of Fidel in action. To begin, a modern mini-retrospective for refreshment.




Forty-nine years ago, you might have seen the news of Fidel and Raúl’s successful march on Havana, which I’m sure you know was the culmination of five years of guerilla tactics against Batista, who was bff with Meyer Lansky and who ran for senate in 1948 from his home in Daytona Beach. Four years later, dear Fulgencio seized the presidency through a military coup, and overall things were rotten on the isle of Cuba until the brothers Castro arrived in Havana.




President Eisenhower officially recognized the new government on January 7, 1959, with Fidel as the head of the military. The following month, however, the new prime minister abruptly resigned, and Fidel assumed the title he has owned ever since. The U.S. almost immediately began hating him; the man wanted the Cuban people to profit from their own natural resources? That is not the way the free market works—didn’t he know about economic liberalism, for god’s sake? Well, the embargo enacted in 1962 would fix his wagon. Nobody messes with United Fruit.




Every head of state needs a break from leading the country now and then. Doesn’t our sitting president regularly jet off to clear brush? Seems Fidel enjoyed a day off too, hanging out with some guys on a boat. Note: this clip is silent; my theory is that the iconic power radiating from Fidel and his buddies struck the camera dumb.




So, how ‘bout that Cuban Missile Crisis? If anyone remembers what a viable nuclear threat felt like, I’d love to talk to you. Che, Fidel’s right-hand man for nearly a decade, had been pretty eager to use those Soviet nukes against the U.S.; Khrushchev’s refusal and subsequent removal of the missiles was a big contributor to Che’s leaving Fidel and Cuba to fight in other wars. He also disapproved of the Soviet’s anti-Chinese-communism position, and how closely it seemed Fidel had aligned Cuba with the U.S.S.R. When Che was executed in Bolivia by C.I.A.-led forces in 1967, it really broke Fidel’s heart. Not that the History Channel here would deign to mention anything so womanly as feelings.




I included the following clip for very specific reasons. It’s a fine example of Castro’s legendary magnetism and powerful oratory skills; not to mention he’s at the United Nations, which shocked me—I had no idea he’d ever been to the U.S., let alone had multiple speaking engagements. Lastly, Fidel’s speech, given in 1979, still resonates 30 years later (and yes I teared up). Despite being a student of French and German, with a little help from the internet, I’ve translated it for you non-Spanish-speakers, and I trust my translation is adequately rough and inaccurate:

Enough with the illusion that the problems of the world can be solved with nuclear arms; bombs may kill the hungry, the sick, the illiterate, but they cannot kill hunger, diseases, illiteracy; they cannot kill the just rebellions of the people.

Then again, not much is mentioned in the way of Castro’s taste for tyranny, dictatorship, a closed society, a repressive government, jailing journalists, forbidding freedom of speech—perhaps those came up later.




Something Fox News and I have in common: not knowing that as of 2006, 638 attempts have been made on Fidel Castro’s life.




Ten years after Che tried and failed to help Lumumba in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Fidel and a large number of Cuban troops went to Africa, to help out the burgeoning socialist governments of countries finally throwing off the yoke of colonialism. Castro helped the Angolans battle apartheid South Africa’s troops; as in Cuba, the “ruling” Portuguese and the South Africans couldn’t give up all of Angola’s delicious natural resources without a fight.




Fidel first came to New York City in 1960, and met Malcolm X because the only hotel that would room that Cuban dictator was the Hotel Theresa in Harlem. In 1995, Castro returned to Harlem to great fanfare, giving a speech at the Abyssinian Baptist Church. Why is he so beloved? The introduction he’s given, which makes up most of this clip, does a good job of explaining.




Isn’t it darling how much Hugo Chávez worships Fidel Castro? It’s like Chávez is the devoted son Castro doesn’t appear to have. It’s tough work, nationalizing a country’s natural resources and still finding time to embarrass the White House by heating buildings in the Bronx; I’m sure Fidel is proud of you, Hugo.




Part of what I find so admirable in Fidel’s story is how his band of citizens fought a corrupt government until the people rose up and took back their island. It makes me think of the American Revolution, when it’s first told to us as small children and we feel proud of these dead strangers. Journalists and historians will reveal Castro’s every sin soon enough; now let’s remember that Fidel first acted for his country, and with the people.




 —Meave Gallagher, Feb. 29, 2008

SHARE THIS • EMAIL THIS

Watching • Video Digest: February 15, 2008

The Writers Guild of America strike is over! Hooray! I’m looking forward to an as-yet-unspecified day in April when Gossip Girl will return to the iTunes store and my TV-watching schedule returns to normal.

Throughout January and the first part of February, I heard that there were some weird things happening on late-night television. While David Letterman and CBS negotiated a special deal with the Late Show writers, Conan O’Brien, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert were put back to work with a pat on the back and an encouraging grin. What happened during these six weeks of 2008? Without a television, I had no idea. After some research, I gathered a few videos together to see if there wasn’t some kind of narrative arc to follow.

Well, there wasn’t, really. There were some funny videos, though.


* * *

Conan O’Brien seemed especially to relish his scriptless monologues. On his first show after a two-month hiatus he was ready for what sounds like naked American Bandstand. Raise your hand if you would participate in a naked dance party with Conan. Right?



On Letterman’s Jan. 2 show, he took it a bit seriously—to the extent that bitter Uncle Dave takes anything seriously—explaining about the strike, and how he was back with his writers because he and CBS had made a special contract with them. That didn’t stop him mocking his strike beard, thankfully.



On Jan. 28, Conan got to direct his own show. This amounted to his having a camera control set on his desk, so he could switch from camera one to camera two to camera whichever, whenever he wanted. For about five minutes, he was the happiest man-child on TV.



Just because Letterman’s writers were back on contract didn’t end his support for the other members of the WGA. In this clip, he gives them camera time and lines written by their Late Show writers-in-arms. Seems like the jokes didn’t change much after two months of striking.



One night in Berlin, my friends and I started our evening drinking Turkish yogurt at an Imbiss, and ended it practically crawling home from an underground nightclub. The air in the subterranean basement was full of smoke from smoke machines and cigarettes, and the strobe light relentlessly blinked. In this show, Conan does a fair representation of that club. Sensory overload is easy to reach with flashing lights and a thumping bass line, even as a viewer at home: if you think you’re going to have a seizure, stop the clip.



Meanwhile on cable, Stephen Colbert had begun a presidential campaign. Maybe Colbert deserves the worshipful following he has; maybe it’s all part of his elaborate charade. Colbert Girl, however, is the independent creation of Ms. Leeni McLeod of Seattle, Wash. Was another effect of the writers’ strike more viewer-driven content? It’s too early to know all that, but I will say, yes. All hail Colbertica.



Everyone loves mock debate! Certainly I do. The January presidential primary debates were just delicious; I can’t wait to see what the rest of the year has to offer. On Jan. 24, writers for The Colbert Report and The Daily Show engaged in a mock debate between the WGA and writer-played representatives of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP). Too bad this wasn’t actually happening at this time during the strike.



Throughout January, there was some friction, some heat, between Conan and Colbert, involving who “made” presidential candidate Mike Huckabee; Colbert pulled in Stewart, who revealed the VHS tape proof that he had “made” Conan, and in turn Huckabee. This late-night baiting couldn’t last, and all three hosts knew it. On Feb. 8, Stewart and Colbert entered the Late Night studios, ready to throw down. Conan grabbed his bat, and they took it outside.



On the first day post-strike, that lovable scamp Conan enlists his band leader, Max Weinberg, to help explain the settlement reached by the WGA and the AMPTP.



If you didn’t understand it, or find yourself wishing for more German disco, remind yourself that this is scripted television again, and we are all very happy to have the writers back on the job. Think of how much Jon Stewart’s I-can’t-believe-I-had-to-say-that eye rolling will increase! Maybe we can start a letter-writing campaign for the return of the unscripted Conan monologue. Put my name at the top of that list.

 —Meave Gallagher, Feb. 15, 2008

SHARE THIS • EMAIL THIS

Watching • Video Digest: February 8, 2008

We had a lovely Super Tuesday in San Francisco, thank you. I agonized over my choice of presidential candidate for days, but ultimately I’m happy with my decision. That immediate post-voting relief was just what I needed to forget the stress from the media saturation insanity of Tuesday morning.




Like I told an equally conflicted friend, whoever gets the nomination will get my full support—phone banking and bake sales and whatever else I can do to prevent another Republican presidency. Disturbingly, Ann Coulter, the thinking person’s mortal enemy, sort of agrees with me on this point. I can’t tell you how surreal it is to watch Ann Coulter and think, Well, she does make a good point, I would vote for Hillary over McCain in a heartbeat, and way to shut up those jerkwads Hannity and Colmes. Still, this clip gave me nightmares.




Continuing with the punditry on Fox News, a couple of blandly attractive “Friends” learn how easy it can be to mess with the Diebold voting machines just before a bunch of states employ them in the primaries. You see how concerned the Foxies look after the fraud is proved on their own example votes. To learn more, check out this HBO documentary, Hacking Democracy. It’ll make your jaw drop with shock, too.




Over at GodTube, the people do not like John McCain. Compared to former preacher Mike Huckabee, McCain is the anti-conservative. The following gentleman made a warning video just before Super Tuesday, to remind his viewers just how terrible a mistake they’d make by voting for the senator from Arizona.




Glenn Beck, one of CNN’s Headline News pundits and the sweetheart who once called Hillary Clinton “Stalin in a pantsuit,” can’t stand John McCain either. And just like our darling girl Ms. Coulter, Beck would rather have President Josef Hillary than President McCain.




To distract from the McCain-hating, a couple of boys who are head-over-heels for Mike Huckabee. As I’ve said before, I do admire Mr. Huckabee’s way with words. It is a terrible shame that he is such a religious nutball, but who wouldn’t want to listen to him give the State of the Union? Instead let’s enjoy this acoustic duet, “The Time of the Huckabee.”




What were the candidates saying just before the big day? Any last-ditch efforts to change swing-voters’ minds? I don’t know how difficult it’s been for Republicans to decide; all the Democrats I knew seemed to be dead sure of their choice for presidential nominee. Yet I’d heard all the debates, I did lots of research, and still it was a toss-up. And no, Ron Paul fanatics, I will never vote libertarian, unless the reincarnation of Hitler/Pol Pot is my only other choice, so please don’t waste your time trying to convince me how great no income tax would be.




This young man knows whom he wants to see in office, and performs an amusing little cover song about how great his candidate is. As someone who’s gone years without health insurance, I recognize the excitement in this line here: “We can finally see a doc when we get poked in the eye.”




This young lady still has love for the Clintons, as evidenced by the face-splitting smile she wears in her photo with Bill at this Super Tuesday rally in Los Angeles. How adorable.




Did somebody say “change”? Sometimes, when I’ve got a debate on and I’m cooking instead of watching the television, I’d swear the candidates are talking about coins instead of “a new or refreshingly different experience/ the act or instance of making or becoming different/ the substitution of one thing for another.” Or, as this video maestro says, “sometimes it seems like the candidates are all singing from the same songbook.”




Now let’s all have a moment of silence for the pundits of CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and all the rest, who no doubt are suffering greatly at the inconclusive results of what was supposed to be the most exciting night in the primary season. Guess you’ll have to keep working, guys. When’s the Hawaii primary again?

 —Meave Gallagher, Feb. 8, 2008

SHARE THIS • EMAIL THIS

Watching • Video Digest: February 1, 2008

President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia invited Alex James, the bassist for Blur, to learn about the troubles in Colombia caused by the cocaine business; the president was inspired by James’s speculation in his autobiography that he’d spent “around a million pounds” on champagne and cocaine during his time in the band. Alex accepted.

So what about cocaine? What inspires someone to spend a million pounds on it? Why is it so prevalent again, and what did Alex learn during his Colombian tour?

Information you already know: Coca-Cola was named for the ingredient that gave its drinkers extra pep and energy. How did the drink and the drug meet each other? Through Italian wine and a morphine addict.




It took about 20 years to realize that cocaine was as addictive as morphine, though only 15 to make the association between cocaine and the morally repugnant. In 1914 it was outlawed using the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act. Oddly, banning it didn’t quite take—shades of prohibition—and people have had access to the drug since. Really easy access these days, it seems.




Cocaine had to come from somewhere before arriving in Spain. This is where Alex James’s story comes in: Nearly all the production is performed in Colombia, from the cocaine base made in Colombian, Bolivian, and Peruvian jungles. For many indigenous farmers, growing coca leaves and processing them into base is how they get by. A life spent working under a drug cartel’s paramilitary, while the elected government’s forces regularly destroy their crops, doesn’t sound like the greatest, but no other job pays enough. Note: This clip is probably not safe for work.




Bolivian President Evo Morales ran on a social reform platform that included the legalization of coca-plant farming. Indigenous people had made use of the leaves for centuries before any Spaniard set foot on their continent—coca is part of the people’s cultural heritage, and they elected Morales in part because of this issue. Has this move affected cocaine production at all?




Last April, the U.S. Coast Guard seized 38,000 pounds of cocaine from busts of three drug-smuggling ships. The story doesn’t end there, of course, but do you know what happens to all that powder once the Coast Guard docks?




For all the powder caught by the authorities, significantly more of it gets past them. This is where the trope of a drug lord’s glamorous life blurs cocaine’s uglier history. Alex James talked to a dealer, who says that in Europe, cocaine is viewed as casually as booze, “as a requisite for a party.” Note: This clip is definitely not safe for work.




Effective, right? I forgot all about the indigenous farmers with all the crazy sexy violence going on. Let’s sober up with a Nancy Reagan-style scared-straight anti-drug PSA.




New Zealand has its own take on the classic, “this is your brain on drugs.” It reminds me of something Bolivian Vice President Francisco Santos Calderon said to Alex, that buying cocaine is sending money to South American terrorists. I thought it evoked transubstantiation, like the literal consumption of the work and the blood that goes into producing it. Alternatively, this is just another PSA. Note: This clip is not work-safe, nor for the faint of heart.




In light of Alex’s revelation, one might speculate as to how much money Amy Winehouse has spent on her own habit. Certainly enough that at age 24 she’s on her second round of rehab.




Would a happier ending be all right? Eric Clapton is 62, and he kicked his heroin addiction almost 40 years ago, presumably cocaine, too. But one song retains a sort of timeless cool. Like, maybe, cocaine itself? Perhaps.




 —Meave Gallagher, Feb. 1, 2008

SHARE THIS • EMAIL THIS

Watching • Video Digest: January 25, 2008

Fellow citizens, January’s staggering to an end, and you know what that means: it’s time for the State of the Union! This year our 43rd president will deliver his final State of the Union Address, and o how I am looking forward to it. To optimize your enjoyment of this last-ever big important speech from dear leader, I’ve plumbed the depths of YouTube, seeking out the best video edits of annual speeches and responses to them. Not an especially stoic person, this search brought me nearly to tears—of desperation or relief, I can’t say. I undertook this task in order to present to you: The Morning News 2008 George W. Bush State of the Union Addresses: A Retrospective. ABC News compiled video of Bush’s addresses last year; while mediated presentations can be excruciating, I think a nice, bland overview has its place.




Aw, remember Tony Blair? The man they called Bush’s lapdog? He looks properly, Britishly abashed to be suddenly spotlit here. I wonder if he’ll ever be greeted by such rousing applause again.




In 2004, with the end of his first term in site, the president had a lot to say to the country. This speech, in which Bush details some of the torture techniques used by Saddam Hussein’s regime, makes for a grisly remix. Keep small children away, lest all the presidential blinking and twitching induce seizures




Here is footage from the 2005 State of the Union. The president’s sporting another nice blue tie, and the heavies behind him have got their reds on, but you can tell it’s not 2004 because John McCain is wearing a different suit.




The 2006 State of the Union, edited down to its most important 91 seconds.




And what do the pundits think? I’m looking forward to watching this year’s speech on streaming video, so as to avoid the unbearable armchair coaching from talking heads. After half an hour of presidential bombast, you may want to consider a sensory-deprivation session.




The emergence of YouTube during the administration of one of the poorest-spoken presidents in U.S. history has been a beautiful, bountiful marriage, and this video is its most brilliant child.




ThisNation.com hosts the complete texts of every State of the Union Address since George Washington delivered the first in January 1790. The official White House page has the texts too, as well as a video archive. Thank you, and goodnight.

 —Meave Gallagher, Jan. 25, 2008

SHARE THIS • EMAIL THIS

Watching • Video Digest: January 18, 2008

Lately, it’s become serious punishment to follow presidential politics in the U.S. Why? Misogyny. Hillary Clinton’s big, bold run for president, and her nerve to be successful at it, has made it OK for jerks of all stripes to unleash their latent woman-hating. Allow me to indulge in some righteous feminist wrath for just a moment: You jerks are spoiling the discussion for everyone else. I can’t read political blogs anymore because of all the “Hillary is a dumb [nasty epithet], she is robotic, she is too emotional,” etc. ad nauseum. What year is this?

With all the awful things said about her, not just her political career but her personal life and her looks, it’s worth repeating the age-old question: What do they have to do with her ability to lead? Is it any wonder Hillary got a little verklempt last week?




Leader of the Hillary Hate Brigade, Chris Matthews, and the cheek pinch heard ‘round the world—I am impressed that Hillary handled this insulting gesture with such dignity and aplomb. Watching it, I yelled and threw a shoe across the room.




Even more controversial than Sen. Clinton was a woman who never officially held political office, the First Lady of Argentina, Eva Perón. Controversy aside, she remains a beloved figure, and she was able to organize Argentine women into a real, powerful political party; the last election she lived to see was the first in which they were allowed to vote. Here she is during her “Rainbow Tour” of Europe in 1947.




Unfortunately, there weren’t many YouTube videos in English of Golda Meir, the first female prime minister of Israel, other than this conversation between her and Barbra in 1978. Meir was another controversial political figure, but then again, who isn’t? The forgotten ones.




Remember the history of Liberia? Colonized by the U.S. for freed slaves in 1822, and officially declared the Republic of Liberia on July 26, 1847, by the Americo-Liberian settlers? More recently, the country was torn to pieces by two civil wars, and Charles Taylor’s “presidency” from 1997 to 2003. While child-soldier-recruiting, ethnic-conflict-creating warlord Taylor stands trial for crimes against humanity, Liberia’s first woman president, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, has made massive headway in repairing the damages. Here, the “Iron Lady of Liberia” discusses her plans for the country’s future.




I asked a political activist friend of mine what modern lady political leaders she particularly admired; she said “Madeleine Albright” immediately, and I have to agree. The first woman to serve as U.S. secretary of state, she was fearless when it came to achieving her goals, which she did, unapologetically. I would advise Hillary to have a nice long chat with Ms. Albright about image and politics, if she wants help from someone with guts.




Ireland’s first woman president was Mary Robinson, whose platform in the 1970s included the legal availability of contraception, which was so unpopular when she first introduced the initiative in the Senate, no one would second it and it died without discussion. Who would’ve thought that in 1990 she would successfully run for president of a country of Irish Catholics? The work she’s done is admirable, and internationally recognized; I respond (again), there are far worse names to be called than “controversial.”




 —Meave Gallagher, Jan. 18, 2008

SHARE THIS • EMAIL THIS

Watching • Video Digest: January 11, 2008

Only 11 days into it and I’m already tired of the presidential hopefuls. Maybe it felt different living in Iowa or New Hampshire, being wooed by each candidate personally, correcting the hordes of reporters who kept calling you a voter—“I’m going to caucus right now, yes.”

Sounds pretty good to me. California moved its primary up to this “super Tuesday” on February 5, sharing the date with 21 other states, so, as usual, I’m not expecting to see any of our special people in person. I see a lot of problems with such a rushed decision-making process—one is that it doesn’t give us voters much time to get a solid understanding of the candidates’ platforms. Repeating the word “change” 50 times in a five-minute speech does not an explanation of issues constitute. My opinion of the frontrunners changes daily; how do you decide on one candidate to caucus or vote for?

A charmingly bumbling YouTube employee called Steve heads project Citizen Tube, which among other things encourages YouTube users to participate in political events, and submit videos about their experiences. Here, Steve visits precinct 64 in Des Moines, to talk to caucus-goers and explain to the uneducated how the Democratic and Republican caucuses work. Hint: entirely differently.




I was one week shy of 18 when the 2000 elections took place. My coworker and I spent as much of that night as we could with the radio turned up loud, cheering whenever Gore took a state, and freaking out when they called one for Bush. The next year I was of age, and I haven’t missed an election yet. The appeal of this video is how unmediated it feels: it’s just students telling the camera who they support, and why. The absolute certainty of some of them reminds me of how sure I was of my convictions back then.




The news has been telling us that the independent vote is going to be crucial this year, but who exactly do they mean? Members of the American Independent party? People who check “decline to state” on their voter registration materials? Considering how our friends on television like everything to be so clearly blue and red, I imagine they view anyone who isn’t in one of those camps as “independent.” Now, who are these people, and why won’t they just go right or left already?




Actual proof that speechifying changes minds: Michelle Obama sways “decided” voters in New Hampshire. This is the kind of opportunity that the crowded-together states are going to miss. No candidate or spouse will have enough time to reach people the way they could in Iowa and N.H., which is a shame. Part of voting for president is voting for someone you want to lead your country, and the printed word just can’t convey the power of a good speech. This, by the way, is one of the reasons Mike Huckabee is doing so well—his connection to the voters.




Huckabee is supposed to be the evangelical Christian’s dream candidate; shouldn’t, then, Mitt Romney be a Mormon hero? Why isn’t the LDS Church rallying ‘round Romney? A member of the LDS Church theorizes that maybe some votes for Huckabee aren’t so much in support of the governor of Arkansas as against the mysterious Mormon. OK, I thought it was a crazy idea, too, but listen to the guy; he makes a good argument.




See, my first assumption was right: In New Hampshire, the presidential primaries are the craziest, most thrilling days of your life. Our polite young student reporter tries and tries, but he just isn’t as obnoxiously pushy as his brethren on cable TV—to his credit, certainly. That’s what makes this report so effective: the man in the blue jacket cannot, will not commit to a candidate on-camera. He seems flabbergasted that anyone could expect him to answer such a serious question so flippantly. How can anyone think of voting without having been to one gymnasium rally yet?




I’m with blue-jacket man. It’s too early, there are too many candidates playing stump-speech mad-libs, and the onslaught of political “analysis” based on bizarre information is killing me. If this little guy hadn’t been born in Israel, maybe I’d have made him my write-in candidate.




 —Meave Gallagher, Jan. 11, 2008

SHARE THIS • EMAIL THIS

Watching • Video Digest: November 30, 2007

I managed to watch this week’s CNN-YouTube Republican debates and I don’t want to be a jerk, but HDTV was not kind to the candidates. Fred Thompson is all crags and jowls, Giuliani’s already enormous choppers tripled in size, and it turns out Mitt Romney’s hairstyle is heavy gel and careful combing. Combined with their quite obvious makeup, all the Republicans looked like caricatures of themselves.

Except, of course, Mike Huckabee. He must give a wonderful sermon, because the man debates beautifully. And with those sparkling blue eyes, such a charmer.

Swooning aside, the video questions were nearly as prominent as the candidates responding to them. That last one about baseball, though, got me all crabby: Why would they waste time with that when there were so many good submissions that didn’t make the cut? Well, then I had to see if we really were missing out on some good questions, so off to YouTube I went. In order to be fair, I chose four questions on subjects that appealed to liberal me, and looked for other videos of one Republican or another speaking on those subjects.

I used to live in the Haight, where there really are cannabis clubs across the street from each other. This guy has some serious concerns as well.

Naturally, the only Republican I could find on the record about medical marijuana is internet darling Ron Paul. As a doctor and a libertarian, his opinion is doubly valuable, right?

It looks like this kid joined just to ask this question about stem cell research. It’s a good question, and he’s so earnest and well spoken; too bad they couldn’t have replaced one of the religion or abortion questions with this one.

Here is Mitt Romney, giving a pretty clear answer that doesn’t involve the word “abortion” at all. Fred Thompson said that he would work to repeal Roe v. Wade right away, should we the people elect him president, which makes me wonder about his priorities. Solid response here, Mitt.

Shitty public schools fail kids, and break the promise of free education. Being a liberal crazy, I object to federal money being given to religious zealots to teach their children to believe that “intelligent design” is science and evolution is blasphemy.

Mike Huckabee understands our feelings; he’s conflicted too! I haven’t heard this view on school vouchers espoused before, and again, the governor impresses me with his thoughtfulness. He does have a way of speaking to a crowd as though he were having an intimate conversation. Also, his complete lack of sex appeal renders him entirely unthreatening, so having a little conservative crush on him is harmless. Totally harmless.

This is the number-one question I wish had been asked in the debate. The asker is from Dayton, but the subject is pertinent all across the Rust Belt, where post-industrial cities are suffering from high unemployment after a long economic downturn, and fallout from the subprime mortgage crisis is creating ghost towns out of once-vital neighborhoods.

An exhausted John McCain answers a similar question here. I admire McCain for his work on campaign finance reform and his unassailable anti-torture views. He can come off as pretty noble as well, although his “veto pen” could easily become this election’s “lockbox.”

Dad, if you’re reading this, I promise I am not voting Republican in 2008. Granddad, I guess you’re right: Republicans aren’t always obnoxious bores.

For complete footage of the actual debate, visit go here.

 —Meave Gallagher, Nov. 30, 2007

SHARE THIS • EMAIL THIS