Andrew Golis

I guess there’s not much to say about this article. It’s one of those things where commentary isn’t even necessary to make it hilarious and surreal.

Ok, so I saw Fahrenheit 9-11 last night. It was, well, exactly what I expected. About half of it was absolutely hilarious and brilliant. The other half was dishonest and stupid. Overall, a pretty frustrating combination.

The problem is, some of Moore’s points are right on. He talks about the way in which enrollment in the army is so sadly slanted towards poor people, and that those who are making the life and death decisions (as well as those related to them) never have to give that ultimate sacrifice because they are rich and powerful. Ok, so I’m not nearly as articulate as Moore was about this (he also has advantage of his brilliant use of pictures as well as words), but you get the idea. Suffice to say that it’s frustrating because many won’t be able to value the amazing parts because of the stupid ones.

I’m thinking I might actually vote for this guy. Am I crazy?

Here‘s the most recent publicity for Democratic candidate (and future President of the United States) Barack Obama. It looks like the rest of the media is catching up to me. I must think more thoughts before they become obvious.

On the flip side, his opponent dropped out this week after this news was reported. What cracks me up about this is that I’ve heard a few people say that it’s really not the sex scandal thing that really sunk him, but the kinkiness of it. After all, many candidates (even for higher offices than Senator!) have overcome infidelity realizations. Getting a blowjob is crappy, but no one thinks Clinton is a freak. They just think he’s an immoral creep. This guy, on the other hand, is a freak because he wanted to do things that most people don’t, things that are sexually taboo. Such a weird thought.

Turns out the farmer from Babe, actor James Cromwell, was in the Black Panthers. I find that entertaining.

One of the primaries reasons that has been argued by those who do not think that Kerry should choose John Edwards for his VP is that Edwards is a more talented politician and would outshine his boring boss. Of course, some people have argued that the fact that Edwards compliments Kerry in that he is the yang to his yin. Kerry is experienced and Edwards is a freshman, Kerry is a war hero who is therefore seen as strong on national security while Edwards has a blue-collar background and his therefore seen as strong on domestic issues. Kerry north, Edwards south, etc. etc.

So the question is, would this seemingly complimentary contrast in styles actually lead to Edwards outshining Kerry on the stump? I don’t think so.

Here’s why. Kerry won the primary for one reason, and one reason only: gravitas. Primary voters saw him as crossing the national security “he’ll keep me safe” threshold that is now clearly a huge help for him in this campaign. Edwards didn’t. Edwards was seen as too young and inexperienced, voters feared that he wouldn’t know enough or be mature enough to sit at the head of the table in the situation room (or they feared that others would think this).

Because of this, I think that Kerry’s gravitas would prevail. Edwards would be seen as the golden little brother. He would be articulate and smart and a good campaigner. Kerry could sit behind him and have a kind of amused and appreciative fatherly look to him: “aww, look at him go” you would see him think. Voters would see this the same way they see the relationship between Bush and Cheney. It is the knowledge that a serious man sits with President Bush at the situation room that lets voters sleep at night. Of course, in this case the relationship would be more appropriately situated.

I always thought they made a cute couple. 

I just saw an online ad for John Kerry on CNN. Let me preface this with saying that I will be voting for Senator Kerry, and it is looking like I will even be increasingly likely to work for his reelection in some fashion. However, I noticed something.

The picture that accompanied the ad had Kerry with one fist triumphantly raised and a big grin on his face, like a boxer after a victorious bout. Now, I understand that the image is intended to motivate people by giving them the image of Kerry Victory over Bush, by painting the picture of Kerry the fighter and Kerry the winner. In fact, it may even be successful at doing this. However, I cannot remember any publicity ad ever, of Howard Dean doing this. Of course, Dean lost so maybe he should have, but that’s another thought.

The point is that for the Dean campaign, both in Dean’s eyes and in the eyes of his supporters, it wasn’t about Victory for Dean. It was about Victory for us. While he of course had his own arrogances and dilussions, Dean didn’t strut around like he thought he was JFK *cough*. Now, I’ve pretty much consistently said this from the beginning, but it seems to me that John Kerry wants to be President because he thinks he’d look good in the oval office. Not to say that he isn’t passionate about issues and about principles (seriously!), but there’s a level of ego trip that is a part of this.

And the funny thing is that for political reasons the campaign has run with this image. That, to me, says more about politics than it even does about Kerry or Dean.

I just saw the most amazing television interview of my life. Jon Stewart was interviewing the author of a book called “The Connection” about “How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America.”

Now, this was less an interview than a very subtle take-down. Stewart clearly thought the guy and his book were bullshit from the beginning, but the way in which he recontructed the argument within his questions to make it look foolish, and the way in which he asked what are essentially very common sense question in a non-partisan, non-rhetorical so that his argument wasn’t skewed by typical liberal presuppositions and attitude.

It was also pretty surreal to watch because Stewart was being so quietly vicious to his own guest. You could see the author kind of go bug-eyed as he realized that he was under attack and that he really wasn’t equipped to handle Stewart. At one point right after Stewart has just finished a long and critical question and the audience has laughed and applauded, you see the author start to rev up for a fiery rebuttal. He sits forward on the couch:

“Wait wait wait, I just have one question…” he begins, clearly sensing that he needs a big comeback to save face.

Stewart interjects: “Sagittarius.”

The crowd laughs, the momentum is lost, and the author is left to ask his dramatic comeback question without the rhetorical upswing that he had been counting on.

With disarming humor and unassuming questioning Stewart took down not only this man’s book and argument, but the entire case for the war in Iraq. It was a site to be seen. I will post the video as soon as it is put up on the Daily Show’s website, which will probably be tomorrow or Wednesday.

rrroaarrrr!