This is basically an interview with John Gaeta about the approach taken in the upcoming remake of Speed Racer. The movie looks great, and I’m such a fan of the Wachowski brothers that this is on my must see list. The Matrix and V for Vendetta are among my favorite movies in large part because of the visual and stylistic weight of their films.
|
Blogroll
Friends
CT Politics Politics
Technology West Hartford Blogs |
Active Posts
|
|
Track & Validate
|
$0.18 is the best they got for you, though apparently, Hillary Clinton is running ads making up an $8 billion savings for the American people. The overwhelming majority of economists at this point call BS on that.
PS. This is why I don’t like her as much as I like voting for Obama. This is pathetic pandering.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:45 am
So, when Clinton does it, it’s pandering. What was it when Obama did it? http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/05/06/gas_tax/ (Again, this is a classic example of the false Hillary bad/Obama good dichotomy so many people seem to set up. If you think Hillary’s policies are bad, then fine. Respond to them on their merits. I don’t see why this has to turn into a gratuitous opportunity to talk up Obama for not “stooping” to Hillary’s level, when all of the evidence suggest that he’s not at all above political gimmics himself. And yeah, I know I said I was going to stay out of this argument, but…….)
May 6th, 2008 at 10:50 am
From the article you linked to:
He’s been pretty consistent on this one, and is siding with too many experts to count (and I’m not including Tom Friedman in this list).
It’s pandering when she say she won’t side with economists….
May 6th, 2008 at 11:04 am
My original post was a bit of a drive by, so I’m going to explain it a bit more, and then drop back out of the discussion, since it’s clear you and I just don’t see eye-to-eye on this.
My problem with your original post has nothing to do with the perceived merits of the two approaches. It has everything to do with the false dichotomy I keep seeing between Hillary and Obama. It has gotten to a point (and here I’m not just speaking about Fatmixx — it’s more a comment on the liberal blogosphere in general) where it’s essentially a characacture of a children’s rhyme: Obama can do no wrong, and Hillary can do no right.
Does Hillary sometimes pander? Does Hillary sometimes go negative? Does Hillary sometimes advocate the politically expedient solution, rather than address the root problem? YES. She’s a politician. That’s what they do. You *cannot* get to the level of making a serious run for the Presdiency without doing so.
THIS is my problem: Obama does the same things. Obama panders. Obama goes negative. Obama occasionally advocates the politically expedient solution (as he did THREE TIMES in Illinois). The only difference that I see is that 1) Obama has created a political narrative that suggests he’s above doing so, and that’s why you should vote for him, and 2) Obama is better at hiding it/is more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt.
It’s the double standard… (I’m not going to complete the pun on the Mister Clinton slogan from 1992, since I’m sure it would be taken in a way it’s not meant).
The best way I can articulate it is that it seems to be a Madonna/whore distinction, with Obama crammed into one role, and Hillary crammed into the other. That’s the established political narrative, and information that supports that narrative is played up, and information that doesn’t support that narrative is played down. It’s the same issue many liberals have had about media coverage of the Dems vs. Republicans for years, but this time it’s Dems feeding into the narrative.
Got to go to a meeting, but I hope this somewhat explains my issue.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:53 am
I’ll repeat what I said before:
I can’t speak for the entire liberal blogosphere, but I’m not doing what you’re suggesting, and so I’m not sure what I should do differently.
I’ve never suggested he can do no wrong, but I have suggested that Clinton is doing something she herself doesn’t believe in. That’s pandering: when you offer a solution that you know won’t work because it presents a purely political advantage.
Compare what they did: He voted for a bill in different circumstances and saw what how it worked. There’s been one study that says it worked, by passing on 60% of the savings to consumers. That was with $2 gas, and with a different global market. The reaction wasn’t as unanimous from experts, and, after voting for it, seeing how it worked, he claims that it was a bad choice.
Two things are refreshing about that: 1) he admits it was a mistake. After Bush’s famous debate moment in 2004, I’m tired of people that can’t admit that. Politicians will get stuff wrong, and the only way to get the best outcome is to learn from it and move on.
2) Contrary to what she has said, we’ve gone through 7 years of an administration that didn’t side with experts on everything from the war to the economy to the environment. I’m tired of that too.
Both of these points are points in his favor, while not criticizing Clinton at all.
Second major point, my criticism stems from the fact that, in my judgement, she has to know what she’s saying is bullshit.
If you believe that Obama doesn’t believe what he’s saying, say so. Don’t make this about anti-Clinton bias.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
My point is: what did the comment “PS. This is why I don’t like her as much as I like voting for Obama.” have to do with the merits of your argument as to why Hillary’s plan was a bad idea? It’s your need to throw in a gratuitous “Hillary bad” comment when you’re talking about something Obama did right, or a “Obama good” comment when you’re talking about something Hillary did that you don’t like. The post could have stood on its own without your P.S.
As for your last sentence - do I think Obama thought the Illinois bill would “work” when he voted for it — no. Do I think he saw it as a way to gain political points? Yes. That’s part of the fundamental difference. I take everything either one of them does with a grain of salt. I guess I just don’t trust either one of them as much as you.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
you’re missing my point. I’m not saying I trust him a lot, or that I believe everything he says. I trust him MORE than Clinton. Certainly, when she rips “economists” in some broad stroke on a policy that doesn’t make sense on it’s face, she cements that.
And this is what makes my “Hillary bad” comment relevant. She’s doing something wrong. I’m going to call her on it. What she’s doing wrong isn’t proposing the policy, it’s criticizing everyone that disagrees with her, experts in their fields, as being out to harm middle America.
If I can’t say, “Hillary bad” to that, I don’t know what the heck I’m supposed to do.
Let me be clear here: the post was intended to criticize her, and I feel comfortable that I don’t have some hidden vendetta for her.
Look, I don’t know if this applies to you, but a common pattern I’ve noticed among Hillary supporters is this idea that
A) Obama supporters think he’s the anointed one and are thus naive or ignorant of the nature of politics, and
B) That there are issues with the narrative Obama has created for himself, that it’s the end all and be all of his campaign (Basically, the cynical skepticism about his campaign)
Both of those assumptions are worrisome. I don’t assume that Clinton supporters are dumb or naive. I don’t take issue with people preferring her as a candidate. Yet, I get grief for criticizing her on the grounds that I don’t know that “Obama is a politician.”
JFK slept around, kicked off Vietnam, and basically made a host of mistakes yet he’s still a better President than many (all?) that came after him. You can be “a politician” and still be better than other politicians.
Honestly, I feel the need to throw in PS’s like that because Clinton supporters (and you, in this case), assume that I’m voting for him because I like the way he talks, or that I really like his Slogan, or I think of him as some great hope in the sky. I don’t, and when presented with an example that explains my preference, I feel the need to highlight that.
Honestly, I would prefer it if Clinton supporters just defended her first, the same way I think you’re asking me to behave. I think I am behaving that way… I don’t understand how that one sentence indicates malice…
May 6th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
I think you and I are missing each other. I had no problem with the substance of the post. I’m definitely not saying you can’t criticize her. If you disagree with Hillary, fine. Let’s get that out there.
My problem was with the PS, and the implication that while Hillary was “pandering,” Obama would never do that and is somehow above it.
Your point re: JFK is similar to what I’m trying to say. They BOTH do it. The ALL do it. So let’s talk about why their policies are good or bad, not resort to the “Hillary is bad because she panders; Obama is good because he doesn’t” meme. How about “Hillary is bad (for me) because I don’t like her policies; Obama is good (for me) because I like his.”
Obama panders, too. He’s just less blatant about it. But the fact that it may or may not be pandering doesn’t say much about whether or not it’s good policy (and here, I agree it’s bad policy). (The old process versus substance debate about political reporting.)
I guess where I’m coming down is — I don’t buy the argument that negativity/pandering/adopting a politically expedient position necessarily makes someone a bad candidate, or leader, or whatever. I guess I fall more into the political realism school - sometimes, you have to do stupid stuff to build up the political capital to tackle the issues that are important. The question is, will the person use the political capital to actually do that? (And I agree that Bill Clinton was bad about not being willing to always expend political capital at the right time. And I’m not sure Hillary will be better.)
But I’m hesitant to attack her for “playing the game,” and making that the basis for why she’s unfit for president, when they ALL play the game, and it seems like she’s disproportionately called out for it. And I see some of that — in the broad sense, not with you — as having to do with gender. Sort of the idea that men who display anger in the workplace are judged as more competent, but the woman showing the same anger is viewed as less competent. I just honestly believe that Obama does much of the same stuff, but it’s not considered as remarkable because he’s a man, so less of it get’s covered/discussed/whatever. And yes, it comes down to a fundamental difference in whether or not you believe that gender is shaping the political narrative. I know that not everyone agrees with my view.
But I just don’t believe (and the evidence I’ve seen doesn’t support) the idea that somehow Hillary is this unusual, down-in-the-gutter politician, but Obama is a squeaky clean, above-the-fray politician that would never stoop to negativity, pandering, etc., etc. I think it’s a false dichotomy, and I just perceive less of a willingness to call out Obama when he does things like the Medicare ad, versus a hair-trigger willingness to call out Clinton when she acts like an ass. (And, frankly, it’s not a major issue for me — although I’ve gone on record as hating the tone of both sides — because it doesn’t tell me much about whether or not they’ll actually acomplish anything once they get elected.)
(As a completely rhetorical aside, the difference in the coverage of Clinton’s meeting with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, versus the coverage of Clinton/Obama/Dean’s recent appearances on Fox News is staggering to me. Yes, some could argue that Scaife is somehow worse than the Fox News crew, but I still prefered a principaled refusal to appear on Fox by all three of them.)
Fundamentally, I think Obama is a politician that’s willing to make calculated choices about how best to accomplish his goal (the presidency). And that’s not a bad thing. It’s a necessary thing. But let’s acknowledge that he’s not all sunshine and light, and Hillary is not all evil and darkness. (If Obama didn’t have a willingness to go negative at the right time, throw the voters a bone on silly stuff that doesn’t matter, etc., he would suck as a politician. And we can all agree that he is a gifted one. So let’s just admit that they both have warts.)
May 6th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
The part where you say “the implication … Obama would never do that and is somehow above it” is a case where you’re putting words in my mouth. I would never say such a thing.
And when you say he’s all sunshine and light? I never said that either. Nor have I implied it. And when you imply that attacking her as “unusual, down-in-the-gutter politician,” I never said that either.
I’d add that I have yet to see Obama support a policy that most every expert in that policy area objects to. When that happens, you let me know.
My issue is that you’re basically calling me out for something I didn’t say or do. And you’re taking me to task for statements I’m not making. The PS was legitimate: this is a “pathetic” pander. It’s not just politically convenient, it bad policy. Really bad policy. And, as I said, that’s why I prefer Obama.
Sujal