Apocalypse Watch

I thought I'd link to this post by Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason University, that a lot of good bloggers link to:

The best case scenario: The bad banks continue to be bought up, there is no run on hedge funds next Tuesday, only mid-sized European banks fail, money market funds keep on buying commercial paper, and the Fed and Treasury continue to operate on a case-by-case basis. Since Congress doesn't have to vote for something called "a bailout," it can give Paulson and Bernanke more operational freedom than they would have otherwise had. The American economy is in recession for two years and unemployment does not rise above eight or nine percent.

The worst case scenario: Credit markets freeze up within the next week and many businesses cannot meet their payrolls. Margin calls cannot be met and the NYSE shuts down for a week. Hardly anyone can get a mortgage so most home prices end up undefined rather than low. There is an emergency de facto nationalization of banks to keep the payments system moving. The Paulson plan is seen as a lost paradise. There is no one to buy up the busted hedge funds, so government and the taxpayer end up holding the bag. The quasi-nationalized banks are asked to serve political ends and it proves hard to recapitalize them in private hands. In the very worst case scenario, the Chinese bubble bursts too.

A Talk On The Financial Crisis

For anyone who has over an hour to kill and really wants to learn about the financial crisis, this video -- a talk given by Princeton economics professors -- is for you. (I know that means probably no one, but that's why it's my blog.) I haven't watched the whole thing yet, but I started too and it looks really informative.

How Did We Get Here?

Here's Krugman(this is from last Friday):

First of all, we have the Republican Study Committee blowing things up with a complete nonsense proposal — solving the crisis with a holiday on capital gains taxes. How is that possible? Well, if a party runs on economic nonsense for 25 years, eventually many of its foot soldiers will be people who actually believe the nonsense.

More specifically, though, the failure to get a deal reflects the betrayals of the Bush years.

... And after the way the Bushies and their allies double-crossed the Democrats again and again in the aftermath of 9/11 — demand national unity, then accuse you of being soft on terrorists anyway — there’s no way Pelosi and Reed will do the responsible but unpopular thing unless the Republicans agree to share ownership.

So what we now have is non-functional government in the face of a major crisis, because Congress includes a quorum of crazies and nobody trusts the White House an inch.

As a friend said last night, we’ve become a banana republic with nukes.

Apocalypses And Silver Linings

The bailout is rejected and the Dow drops 600 points. The only thing that occurs to me right now, apart from whether or not I should stuff my savings under a mattress, is that maybe, just maybe, through all the suffering that will probably be happening in the near future, the country might start to confront the unsustainable lifestyle and mindset that we've been living with. I hope that Congress passes the bailout on a second vote, but part of me worries that only if it doesn't will we be broken out of our denial.

Escalation In Pakistan

Just so no one thinks this blog is only about the presidential race, here is a report about the state of events in a real powderkeg -- Pakistan. Apparently the attack on the Marriot Hotel on September 20th has shaken the country tremendously. (Incredibly, the entire political and military leadership of the country was going to be at the hotel, but plans changed at the last minute!) The article calls the attack Pakistan's 9-11:

like 9/11, [the attack] marks the beginning of a new battle: this time not the "war on terror", but the war by terrorists.

Pakistan is now the declared battleground in this struggle by Islamic militants to strike first against American interests before the United States' war machine completes its preparations to storm the sanctuaries of al-Qaeda in Pakistan.

The article goes on to say that U.S. and Islamist militant activity in the Northwest has risen recently and is expected to rise further -- the "gloves have come off." Also, I should note that a couple of days later Pakistani and U.S. troops exchanged fire. Then there is Pakistan's own financial meltdown. Hold on to your hats, ladies and gentlemen!

I Know I'm A Broken Record

I just want to say that I realize that I've been posting almost entirely on Palin for the last two days. I swear I'm trying to break the habit.

Palin Interviews Before She Was A Candidate

I'm putting this link up because it's very interesting and informative, but it's also long and perhaps more information than most people care for. It's an analysis of Palin's past interviews, before she was McCain's vice presidential nominee. Basically, even in areas where she's more familiar, she spouts wrote talking points, goes for the aggressive superficial response instead of the nuanced one, is terrible at follow-up questions, and doesn't care to get the details right. She is the end-point of the political style that Bush represents.

Disney Does Palin

It's an all Palin day.

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.

Palin Interview Vs. SNL Parody: How Can You Tell The Difference?

The funniest/scariest aspect of this video is that some of her answers are very close to what she actually said.

The Sadness of Sarah Palin

One of my favorite new bloggers is becoming Ta-Nehisi Coates. Really smart, a good sense of humor, and honest about both right and left. He feels for Sarah Palin:

There can be no doubt that they picked Palin strictly as a stick to drum up the victimhood narrative--small town, hunters, big families and most importantly, women.

... To the McCain camp, Palin isn't important as a politician, or even as a person.

[McCain] knew full well what Sarah Palin was going to face if he nominated her. He knew that reporters would go through her past, that they'd quizz her on the present, that she would need to be ready, and he shunted concern aside, and tossed her to the wolves.

Don't get me wrong, I don't feel personally sad for Palin: she chose to accept McCain's offer knowing her own limitations and should have expected to have those limitations severely tested. But there is something sad about a political system, and a campaign, that takes a person who is completely out of her depth and uses her with supreme cynicism, only as a tool to achieve power. Maybe I'm going a little too far: I've read that McCain picked her because he saw -- in the two seconds he spent getting to know her -- a kindred, maverick spirit, and so, his decision was not made merely as a political calculation. But, I don't think so. In the end, McCain never took her seriously. He never gave her the respect and care of a full vetting. He wanted to win, even if it meant that her reputation could be ruined.

W. Bigger! Better! Longer!

Some people might wonder why I'm so eager to see this movie that I'm posting an extended version of the trailer I posted two days ago. Well, I don't know why it is that I like the things I like. I just do. But, this trailer IS even better than the first:

McCain Campaign Insiders: Palin is Clueless

I've never heard of Ed Schultz, but his scoop seems plausible.

Capitol Hill sources are telling me that senior McCain people
are more than concerned about Palin.

The campaign has held a mock debate and a mock press conference; both are being described as "disastrous." One senior McCain aide was quoted as saying, "What are we going to do?" The McCain people want to move this first debate to some later, undetermined date, possibly never. People on the inside are saying the Alaska Governor is "clueless."

Of course, I WANT it to be what's happening, but the guy could have it wrong. I mean, what if this isn't what's really happening? What if Palin is actually getting a lot better? Then, the debate comes on Thursday, and suddenly she blows people away with how much she's improved, and turns things around for McCain??......Nah!

Colbert May Give Up His Hummer for An Electric Car

Bob Lutz, vice chairman of G.M., was on The Colbert Report talking about the radical new car G.M. introduced this week, the Chevy Volt. It can travel for 40 miles on only electricity. Above that a small gas engine kicks in and re-charges the batteries to increase its range. At night you just plug it into a home outlet. What this means is that the car reduces fuel consumption to about $0.70 per gallon, according to Lutz. I'm also posting the video because, well, because I find it really funny:

Biden Makes The Rounds

Several blogs have pointed out that, post-debate, Biden was making the rounds on the cable shows, but Palin was nowhere to be found. That's how little faith they have in her. (Either that, or she's holed up somewhere trying to save what's left of her reputation and dignity by practicing like an animal for next week's debate.) Biden, however, is great. He's actually better -- more hard-hitting -- than Obama:

The First Debate, Ctd.

I forgot to add that I don't think there were any game-changing moments in the debate and it won't really change anyone's opinion. At most, I think it will reassure a few people that Obama is capable and comfortable with national security issues.

The First Debate

Overall I think it was a very good. It was…. an actual debate! Substantive and detailed. Both men knew what they were talking about. I got to see how they think, their core messages and core personalities -- light-years better than the last two presidential debates. Obama cited a lot of basic facts and figures and kept the focus on ordinary people. McCain keeps coming back to a more morally-oriented view – its that honor thing again. He talks about corrupt financial officials, victory with honor in Iraq, a Russia run by an evil KGB. On foreign policy, Obama is now the prudent realist and McCain is the impulsive neoconservative.

Obama did very well, and I’m relieved. I’ve been very fearful of this moment; I was never impressed with his debate presentation during the primaries, and sometimes, as in the infamous ABC debate, he was terrible. He has a halting manner that makes him look like he lacks command of what he’s saying – like he’s just thinking through the issue in the moment he answers rather than drawing on thinking that he’s done before. But that was gone tonight. He was comfortable and forceful. His best debate performance yet. More than that I thought his foreign policy arguments were clear, coherent and assertive, even a little aggressive sometimes (like on Pakistan). He is confident in his national security positions; he is not Kerry or Dukakis. He is the best candidate on these issues the Democrats have had in a while.

McCain was ok, though a little passive, and also a little annoyed sometimes. He never looked Obama in the eye and refused to call him by his first name when Obama occasionally called him “John”. He also seemed to have a little contemptuous sneer as Obama talked. My guess is that this reflects a real feeling – I think he can’t STAND Obama. Still, he didn’t have any bad moments, could bring up impressive personal anecdotes and on certain answers, like on Russia, he showed his extensive command of the issues.

One thought that occurred as I was watching. I imagined Palin in this kind of debate…. Shudder.

Some specific moments:

9:35 -- When asked how the financial bailout would affect their plans Obama responds with superficialities, but McCain responds with a suggesting he would have a spending freeze. That seems specific and unexpected.

9:37 -- Obama: "It's been your president... who presided over this increase in spending. This orgy of spending and enormous deficits you voted for almost all of his budgets. So to stand here and after eight years and say that you're going to lead on controlling spending... I think just is, you know, kind of hard to swallow."

9:42 -- Obama on Iraq: “you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong.

You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shia and Sunni. And you were wrong.

if the question is who is best-equipped as the next president… then I think we can take a look at our judgment.”

9:54 -- Obama’s talk on Pakistan feels a little blustery and maybe empty. When he says that we coddled Musharraf, I wonder if a Democratic administration would have done anything different.

10:04 -- McCain is talking about his idea of forming a League of Democracies to deal with Iran. This seems like a potentially reckless, bad idea, the kind of idea that I am worried about given McCain's personality: His League would not include Russia and China and might cause dangerous splits and tension among world powers. Obama counters in exactly the right way, by pointing out that we need Russia and China to deal with Iran.

10:08 -- Obama defends his “negotiating without preconditions” well. McCain brings up Kissinger and Obama flips Kissinger back onto him by pointing out that Kissinger agrees with Obama.

Desperate Times Call For Desperate Moves

This is a really smart take on how to judge the success or failure of McCain's suspension and why he did it:

The move strikes me as a modest success, and it's best considered against the alternative. Had McCain not abandoned ship yesterday, the news from his campaign would have been twofold: his campaign manager's ties to Freddie Mac, which the campaign hasn't been able to convincingly deny; and his running mate's truly unsteady interview with Katie Couric. (The fact that McCain also sat down with Couric yesterday suggests his campaign knew it had to counterbalance that interview.)

Meanwhile, the candidate would have simply been swept along with President Bush's bailout, leaving no mark of his own on it, and saying nothing about the economy.

Now he's made himself a player, appeared as a leader, and shown he cares about the economy, even if his attempt to take credit for doing anything is doubtful and contested. And he's spent far less time talking about Davis and Palin.

That doesn't mean he "wins the week" or has vastly changed the narrative. But it may be better than the alternative.

W.

This movie is going to be AWESOME!

'W' Theatrical Trailer @ Yahoo! Video

One of the things I think I'm really going to like is Brolin's performance. I get the feeling he manages to show us Bush's humanity underneath the jokey, kid-who-never-fully-grew-up surface. He doesn't just do a glib impression.

Palin on Russia

I've been tempted, but I haven't mocked Palin yet because, first, it's cheap, second, everybody's doing it, and third, it's just too easy:


Watch CBS Videos Online

It's truly stunning to know that she's the candidate of a major national party.

Yesterday, I heard rumors or suggestions that McCain's suspension was a ploy to delay the Friday debate so that the vice-presidential debate would have to be moved... and then conveniently forgotten about. At first it seemed too ridiculous: Canceling the debate, or pushing it back to a point where it would be too late to hold would generate so much bad press and bad sentiment in the public that it would be a fatal move. Now, watching Palin's performance here (and also on this clip, on the financial crisis) makes me start to believe it. It still seems far-fetched, but just maybe the campaign thinks it's better to risk the backlash than having Palin on stage, exposed, for an hour and a half.

The Great Schlep

Sarah Silverman doing what she does best.

Re-Post: "Honor"-Obsessed

For a while my main concern with McCain has been his impulsiveness. Just look at the Palin pick: For political and personal reasons he picks someone with little or no vetting, who turns out to simply not be ready to be president. But, there is something else that has bugged me about him, something more that I have not been able to put my finger on. Today George Will put my vague feelings into words:

For McCain, politics is always operatic, pitting people who agree with him against those who are "corrupt" or "betray the public's trust," two categories that seem to be exhaustive -- there are no other people.

Continue reading "'Honor'-Obsessed"

Re-Post: A Painter Emerges From The Corporate Muck

This painting is by one of my closest friends -- Frank Ballabio. Last year he was just another cog in the vast machine that is corporate America. But, since then he has struck out on his own as a painter. He has a new website. Its really good and everyone should check it out.

Continue reading "A Painter Emerges From The Corporate Muck"

Re-Post: The Dark Knight: A Blockbuster For Our Times.

A few weeks ago I saw The Dark Knight for a second time (in Imax, no less -- and totally worth it). Though I didn’t think so highly of it at first, it has really grown on me, like no popular movie has in a long time. I realized that it really is an epic fantasy of heroism for a post 9-11 world and I’m inspired to write about it.

There is an inchoate, but pervasive fear right now that the country is spinning out of control… and that its just going to get worse. We live with war, terrorism, corruption, environmental and economic decay. We’ve lost faith in government’s ability to conduct war, rescue its citizens from natural disasters, and prevent financial failure. Every year there is some new moral line that we feel we had to cross, lines such as torture and illegal surveillance. We’ve lost faith that the world is going to get better. It might feel like the only sane thing to do is look out for just yourself. What other option is there when fundamental certainties in life no longer seem so certain? The people out in the world still fighting the good fight, selflessly attempting to bring order against all odds are few and far between, fighting a holding action at best, or doomed to total failure at worst. Even General Petraeus has succeeded in Iraq beyond everyone’s expectations, but says that the gains are reversible and that he himself will never claim to have achieved victory.

Continue reading "The Dark Knight: A Blockbuster For Our Times"

Re-Post: What Obama Forgot: It's All About The Narrative.

Earlier this week, I wrote about what Obama must do to regain the advantage in the race. I said that he should put out a new ad that takes the fight to McCain and challenges him on his core qualities. Well, its clear that the campaign reads this blog because they followed my advice and within a day came out with an ad which does just that: take on his maverick-ness.

But the question is: Is it enough? It’s not clear enough to me that it is.

Continue Reading "What Obama Forgot: It's All About The Narrative"

Letterman lays into McCain

I stand by my original impression. This feels to me like a leading indicator of public reaction to McCain suspending his campaign.

McCain is really losing it

With today's weirdness about McCain suspending his campaign coming after a string of bad days, I'm getting the feeling that he is crossing some kind of line of craziness, mismanagement and self-destruction. It feels like one thing after another is going wrong. Just now he was supposed to appear on Letterman today, then canceled, telling Dave that he had to go back to DC to deal with the economy. Then:

... in the middle of the taping Dave got word that McCain was, in fact just down the street being interviewed by Katie Couric. Dave even cut over to the live video of the interview, and said, "Hey Senator, can I give you a ride home?"

Earlier in the show, Dave kept saying, "You don't suspend your campaign. This doesn't smell right. This isn't the way a tested hero behaves." And he joked: "I think someone's putting something in his metamucil."

Though he doesn't have nearly the cultural power of Johnny Carson, David Letterman is not just another reporter or anchor. They are supposed to be serious, he isn't. When he gets annoyed, as he seems to be in the quote, I think it signals a shift in the general acceptance of what McCain is doing.

Obama's response, that it's "exactly the time" for a debate, is great.

Hollywood and Herman Melville, Perfect Together

Moby Dick is being made into a movie (though not for the first time). It's changing a little:

The writers revere Melville’s original text, but their graphic novel-style version will change the structure. Gone is the first-person narration by the young seaman Ishmael...

This change will allow them to depict the whale’s decimation of other ships prior to its encounter with Ahab’s Pequod, and Ahab will be depicted more as a charismatic leader than a brooding obsessive.

"Our vision isn’t your grandfather’s ‘Moby Dick,’ " Cooper said. "This is an opportunity to take a timeless classic and capitalize on the advances in visual effects to tell what at its core is an action-adventure revenge story."

You just know it'll be shown in Imax. I can't wait.

He's Up!

My friend Jedd says he never looks at polls, but I can't help it, especially when Obama is up in most recent polls and up by nine in today's ABC News/Washington Post poll. Not only that, but he's up in the electoral college as well.

A Great British Commercial

I get almost all my video links from Andrew Sullivan and today he doesn't disappoint. This is a commercial for a brand of bread called Hovis and it takes you through the last 100 or so years of British history, from pre-World War I through every period until the Millennium. It's so good that I watched it twice and teared up both times (just a little).

You can watch a higher-quality version here.

Campbell Brown Rocks!

Campbell Brown, CNN anchor, brings it. She calls out the McCain campaign for its sexist over-protection of Sarah Palin.

The Giant Pool of Money

I haven't posted anything on the financial crisis because, well, since I don't know anything about the financial world, I wouldn't be able to come up with anything remotely insightful. But I CAN link to the most lucid explanation of how this all started that I know of: This American Life did an entire show on the issue back in early May. They interviewed all the types of people involved in the long chain of responsibility, from those getting the mortgages to the local bankers who approved them to big-time bankers on Wall Street who bought the mortgages and then re-sold them to investors all over the world. It really gives you a great sense of the big-picture, as well as the kinds of personalities involved. It all starts with the $70 TRILLION that makes up the world's savings, what the show calls the Giant Pool of Money.

Maybe The Debates WON'T Matter?

I thought the debates had the potential to really alter the race. But this post political scientist Tom Holbrook surprises me:

... the norm is for very little swing in candidate support following debates. Across all thirteen presidential debates the average absolute change in candidate support was 1 percentage point. There are a few notable exceptions, of course. Two that stand out are the second debate in 1992, following which George H.W. Bush lost 2 points, and first debate of 2004, after which George W. bush lost 2.26 points. Other debates with above average ( but still small) vote shifts are the first debate in 1996 and the second debates in 1988 and 2000.

"Honor"-Obsessed

For a while my main concern with McCain has been his impulsiveness. Just look at the Palin pick: For political and personal reasons he picks someone with little or no vetting, who turns out to simply not be ready to be president. But, there is something else that has bugged me about him, something more that I have not been able to put my finger on. Today George Will put my vague feelings into words:

For McCain, politics is always operatic, pitting people who agree with him against those who are "corrupt" or "betray the public's trust," two categories that seem to be exhaustive -- there are no other people.

That's what it is. McCain is consumed with grandiose notions of "honor" and "nobility", fitting any issue -- Wall Street, Iran, Iraq, South Ossetia -- within these concepts. And so, incredibly complex issues get simplified, caricatured and placed into a black and white moral framework. That is what is potentially so dangerous about McCain: By placing everything into this framework he makes reckless, extreme action much more likely. There is no reason to calmly think things through. Why? He has honor and Wall Street has none. We are a free and good democracy and Russia is a repressive, imperialistic dictatorship. Next stop: war with Iran.

Our Future In Iraq.

I haven't thought much about the Iraq War recently, but come January 09 it will probably come back to the center of US politics and whatever either McCain or Obama do will have profound effects on the US in the world for decades to come. I think I'd better know a little more about what is going on. As a start this Andrew Sullivan post captures my feelings well, particularly this part:

I do not want to succumb to defeatism any more than I want to engage in denialism. There is a moral responsibility to cope with the chaos we have wrought and the nightmare our departure could mean; but there is also a moral responsibility to the American people not to sacrifice their young and squander what's left of their treasury on a fool's errand. No path is morally pure. And neither offers a clear path to security.

Reading the New York Times article he links to, it is amazing to realize just how much progress has occurred there since 2006 when all hope seemed lost. Dexter Filkins contrasts the vast differences between then and now in the neighborhoods he visits. He is astounded: stores have re-opened, streets re-paved, women walk freely (in jeans!), violence is down by as much as 90 percent! At the same time he quickly points out how fragile the progress still is, and how no one in Iraq is prepared to predict the future: reconciliation between Sunni groups and the government hasn't happened, the place of the Kurds has not been figured out, and he points out that the mounting pile of oil profits poses a great reason for competing groups to potentially re-start the fighting.

Reading of all this progress actually makes a big part of me want to stay in Iraq to clean up the mess we've made and allow the Iraqi's a shot at a decent life that we took away from them. But, this path is clearly dangerous: How long, exactly, will a lasting peace take? Staying there for another ten years, for example, doesn't seem sensible to me -- there is the loss of our soldier's lives, tying up military resources that will be needed elsewhere, and extending Muslim resentment towards us. As Andrew points out, neither path is remotely clear.

A Painter Emerges

This painting is by one of my closest friends -- Frank Ballabio. He's been drawing and painting for several years, and getting better all the time. Now, he has a new website. It's really good and everyone should check it out.

Angler

Here is an excellent interview with Barton Gellman, author of Angler, the new book on Dick Cheney. Some great stuff on Cheney's involvement in the VP vetting process and in the way he extended his control over the executive branch. The book should be equally fascinating -- a look deep inside a truly Machiavellian, power-obsessed person.

The Best Graph I've Seen In A While

This website has a graph of Palin's favorability ratings over the last few weeks. It looks promising, but there are too few recent data points to really know for sure. Still, I can hope.

The World According to Obama... And Zakaria.

When I grow up I want to be Fareed Zakaria. He makes the case that Obama's calmer and more optimistic view of the world is the right one. He points out that the US has just as much to fear from exaggerating threats as from underestimating them. I wholeheartedly agree.

Yikes!

Today FiveThirtyEight has new projections showing that McCain will win the electoral college, 289 to 249. Oh, boy.... Calm down, Axuve. Calm down. You can't let the panic get to you. There are still seven weeks left to go.

Obama's New Ad Nails It.

Now this is an attack ad!



Well done. It takes on McCain's strength -- his reputation for honor and taking the high road -- and then strips it bare by highlighting the recent ads, ads that can't be easily spun in any way but as cheap and disgusting and that don't really make an emotional connection with the general perception of Obama. This could really work because McCain's reputation is such a big part of who he is. Then it links his mud-slinging to his policies and to George Bush. It helps push along the new narrative I think is being created: What happened to John McCain? He used to be this straight-talkin' honorable guy, now he lies more than Karl Rove. This should help. Though, my feeling is this is necessary, but it isn't going to solve all of Obama's problems. It's still just responding to McCain's ad, not fighting on his own turf, and doesn't offer something positive for people to get excited about. What it will do is stop the bleeding and get people and the media to take another look at McCain.

I'm An Idiot: Petrified! Not Terrified!

A friend pointed out the limits of my pop culture knowledge. The title of my last post was an attempt to use the the lyrics of the Gloria Gaynor song, I Will Survive, but I screwed up and used the word "terrified", when I should have written "petrified". This is what I get for trying to be clever and show off as if I'm some kind of master blogger. Fortunately, both words still convey the same terror I will feel if Palin-McCain wins.

First I Was Afraid... Now I'm Terrified.

On the heels of reading the troubling article on McCain I read an even scarier article in the New York Times on Palin's habit of staffing her administration with longtime friends, resulting in an atmosphere of secrecy, where loyalty is especially prized. Who does that remind you of?

Two choice bits:

...her visceral style and penchant for attacking critics — she sometimes calls local opponents “haters” — contrasts with her carefully crafted public image.

Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance,

And:

The administration’s e-mail correspondence reveals a siege-like atmosphere. Top aides keep score, demean enemies and gloat over successes. Even some who helped engineer her rise have felt her wrath.

Obama HAS to win.

McCain's Psyche: Reckless. Gambling. Scary.

This is a fascinating article I am just catching up with now on McCain's gambling, reckless and hard-charging character. He oscillates from self-centered ambition to an extreme need for penitence -- it seems to be a cycle with him. The article sheds some light on what's going on now in the campaign. But, more importantly, imagining how this character could translate into his actions as president is pretty disturbing.

The Dark Knight: A Blockbuster For Our Times.

A few weeks ago I saw The Dark Knight for a second time (in Imax, no less -- and totally worth it). Though I didn’t think so highly of it at first, it has really grown on me, like no popular movie has in a long time. I realized that it really is an epic fantasy of heroism for a post 9-11 world and I’m inspired to write about it.

There is an inchoate, but pervasive fear right now that the country is spinning out of control… and that its just going to get worse. We live with war, terrorism, corruption, environmental and economic decay. We’ve lost faith in government’s ability to conduct war, rescue its citizens from natural disasters, and prevent financial failure. Every year there is some new moral line that we feel we had to cross, lines such as torture and illegal surveillance. We’ve lost faith that the world is going to get better. It might feel like the only sane thing to do is look out for just yourself. What other option is there when fundamental certainties in life no longer seem so certain? The people out in the world still fighting the good fight, selflessly attempting to bring order against all odds are few and far between, fighting a holding action at best, or doomed to total failure at worst. Even General Petraeus has succeeded in Iraq beyond everyone’s expectations, but says that the gains are reversible and that he himself will never claim to have achieved victory.

This picture I paint is an exaggeration of what life is really like, but I don’t think it’s an exaggeration of the zeitgeist – what it feels like to live in the first decade of the twenty-first century. It is this world that The Dark Knight captures so well. (Danger: spoilers ahead!) When the story begins, Gotham City is finally being brought under control by the Batman. He and Lieutenant Gordon are putting pressure on the Gotham’s criminals and finally bringing some order to a hellish place. But, with the Joker comes a new element of arbitrariness, perversity and disorder: He robs criminals of their own money and then goes into business with them; he kills city officials to for sport; he switches the addresses where Rachel Dawes and Harvey Dent are being held, knowing that Batman will go after Harvey thinking its Rachel. As he says, he is a an “agent of chaos.” Batman is the Joker’s opposite. He fights to preserve civilization, not just save people’s lives. As a creature fighting in a very tough world he has only one principle, but he does have it: he refuses to kill. (It’s ironic that he is presented as an agent of civilization even when he is beating up criminals – a mild form of torture, effectively – but that’s a topic for another time.)

Within these two characters the stage is set for a fight over the nature of humanity and society and over its future. The fight is played out in two ways: through the city at large and through Harvey Dent. The Joker creates situations where both will have their character tested to the extreme. For him, moral principles are merely facades. When the façade comes down, people are vicious animals and will tear each other up. “The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules,” he says. What will Harvey do once he learns that he has lost everything? How will the civilians and prisoners in the ferryboats respond to the trap the Joker has set? And, will the Batman have to violate his own rule in order to save the city? The Joker poses a moral dilemma for Batman to answer: do we throw out our principles and reveal them to be a lie? Or do we keep them and lose our lives and the lives of the people we love?

The people of the city answer first. When each group in the ferryboats is given the option to save itself by killing the other group, neither is able to do it. The moral price they would pay would be too high. The Joker is wrong: humanity (at least, these people) really believes in its principles to its core.

But Harvey Dent represents the other side of the dilemma, and this is what makes The Dark Knight great. Harvey is the “white knight,” the hope Gotham has for a future of a genuine order that doesn’t require Batman the outsider to maintain. But hope is destroyed. He loses Rachel and becomes Two-Face. He becomes a cop-killer and nearly kills Gordon’s family. Batman is able to stop him, but not before his moral corruption is complete and he falls to his death. In Harvey’s case, the Joker was right: The mask fell and there was a monster underneath.

But then the Batman solves the problem in a way that both supports and subtly undermines society’s principles. Batman takes on Harvey’s crimes as his own. He becomes hunted by the police. He goes from being someone on the edge of society – not fully accepted, but still tolerated – to become a true outsider. And the way he does it is through a lie: He lets the city believe that he killed Harvey’s victims, ruining his own reputation to protect Harvey’s. And this is what is interesting about the movie. The movie does give you the standard Hollywood moral comforts: By not blowing up the boats humanity is shown to be basically good; the Batman destroys his Big Brother-like cell-phone surveillance system and rejects that kind of absolute power. But, underneath these comforts is a disturbing truth, that the person Gotham believes is a hero is actually a killer. The stability of the city rests on a lie. Its necessary – the world wouldn’t survive knowing the truth. But how stable is civilization if it needs to be preserved that way?

And that leads us to our world. In the movie order rests on an incorruptible champion who is willing to take on the lie, to do whatever it takes. In real life we know things might not turn out so well: People do sometimes show themselves to be vicious animals; The Bush Administration is listening in to our phone calls, keeping US citizens prisoner and using torture. In real life there is no Batman that society can throw all of its moral problems onto. There is only us. In real life, the failure of civilization is a real possibility.

In the end The Dark Knight remains a pop culture fantasy. The Batman will always be there, watching over us, unwavering, seeking nothing for himself, always ready to make the decisions that no one else can make and then take all the consequences onto himself. But the movie is too wise to not at least suggest the shaky ground our world rests on. It’s this moral sophistication that makes the The Dark Knight so interesting and raises it to a place where it can called something very rare: a giant Hollywood blockbuster that truly speaks to our times.

(Btw, I just bought the soundtrack on iTunes. I recommend it to anyone. It completely rocks.)

What Did Clinton Say To Obama?

This really interesting and instructive. John Harris at Politico has a list of eight pieces of advice Bill Clinton might have given Obama at their recent, private meeting. Really smart observations that Obama would do well to absorb. Say what you will about him, he's still the master.

Clearly, I've Learned To Post Videos.

Here is that Palin parody:



Plus some other random favorites I've watched lately.

The most dramatic point in Tennis history: Jimmy Connors vs. Paul Haarhuis at the 1991 US Open

(NOTE: it looks a lot better in high resolution, which you can see by going to the actual YouTube page here and clicking on "watch in high quality" immediately below the video window):



A great parody of There Will Be Blood:



Feist on Sesame Street:

What Obama forgot: It’s All About The Narrative.

Earlier this week, I wrote about what Obama must do to regain the advantage in the race. I said that he should put out a new ad that takes the fight to McCain and challenges him on his core qualities. Well, its clear that the campaign reads this blog because they followed my advice and within a day came out with an ad which does just that: take on his maverick-ness.

But the question is: Is it enough? It’s not clear enough to me that it is.

Right now the campaign has become battle of character. That’s all the Republicans have to run on and, with the “sex ed for kindergarteners” ad and the “lipstick on a pig” issue they are running with it as far as it will take them. Its a very smart strategy. When Obama responds, as he must, to these ridiculous attacks by saying McCain is shameless and has no character, he eventually comes up against the brick wall that is John McCain’s story. A man who has been tortured in the name of the country can say pretty much anything and keep his character intact. And, my feeling is that, so far, Obama’s responses -- the ad and the “enough is enough!” comments today – have done nothing to change the terms of the fight in any fundamental way.

And this got me thinking: Obama used to have character issues as part of his campaign. In January, he promised to run a new kind of race. Unfortunately, over the summer, the persona the public fell in love with over the course of the primaries disappeared. For my money, what Obama forgot is that a race is all about creating a compelling narrative and sticking to it. It was always a vague narrative, but the bits that shown through were compelling: the possibilities of moving past partisan divisions, running a race that was more willing to challenge conventional liberal thinking, and that held the promise of moving to a new place in race relations. But then the campaign changed. David Brooks takes it from here:

...over the course of the spring, Obama’s campaign got less weird. The crucial pivot came when he failed to seize on McCain’s offer to do a series of joint town-hall meetings across the country. Those meetings would have elevated the race and shown that Obama is willing to take risks in order to truly change the way things are done.

Instead, Obama’s speeches became more conventional, more policy-specific and more orthodox. His Denver acceptance speech was different from his Iowa speeches. It was more traditionally anti-Republican and pro-Democratic.

Brooks is right. The town-hall meetings would have been truly new and potentially transformative. Not doing them Obama showed that his message of changing the system was at least partially hollow. Obama had started to tell a story about where the country could go and how it could get there (though it needed to be fleshed out a lot). But then he threw the story out. At that moment, he laid the groundwork that has given McCain the opening of the last two weeks.

The thing is, I can understand why threw it out. The story he was telling was new and unfamiliar – Bipartisanship?? Moving “beyond” race?? Talking to our enemies in a post 9-11 world?? Were these things possible or just fantasies? To tell the story fully was to really break with the past in a radical way and embrace a new and uncertain future. The story (like Obama) doesn’t fit into the country’s known categories. When Reagan declared that it was “Morning in America,” he, too, told a story of where the country could go (an interesting article that doesn't quite get it right is here):



This ad was one of familiar images that the country had of itself – of hard-working families, marriage, etc. – AND it connected with the image people had of Reagan, an image formed over decades as a movie star and politician. People believed that message coming from Reagan. But, the same can’t be said for Obama. No one knew what a future with Obama would feel like. What he had to do from the beginning, and what he never did, was SHOW people what change meant. Without a track record, without any actual examples to point to, he needed to use his campaign’s actions as the example of change. This is what the town-hall meetings could have helped accomplish.

So, can he regain the narrative again? Probably not in a significant way -- there’s just not enough time. Though – a happy thought, just in case I’m giving the impression all is lost -- I still think he can regain the advantage and win. Now, since he can’t change his own narrative, what he has to do is tear down the other guy’s narrative. This is what he’s been trying to do for the last few days. Tough, he may even have to go farther and goad McCain into sinking to lower and lower depths and hope that at some point McCain just goes too far. It could happen. These guys are shameless and could easily overstep themselves -- McCain’s reputation as a man of honor can work both ways. If it works, then issues are all that’s left, and the campaign will be fought on his turf.

Sarah Palin, Cultural Icon.

Sarah Palin really is taking this campaign to a whole new level. Check out this pretty funny parody of Palin on YouTube.

What Obama Could Do, ctd.

Responding to my idea that Obama should run a new aggressive commercial against McCain, Jedd writes:

That would be nice, but then the R's would just say, look at this attack. see he's just another politician...

That would certainly happen, but I think that the two things, the commercial and the reaction, wouldn't cancel each other out. Obama could still come out ahead by regaining control of the narrative of the campaign. The ad, by being unexpected and outrageous -- by crossing a line and implying that McCain is putting himself before his country -- breaks through people's usual dismissal of political ads and makes them (and the media) open to questioning a candidate in new ways. A response from the McCain campaign wouldn't necessarily eliminate the new questions if the charge was able to stick. Right now Obama is playing defense against the Palin onslaught. If the ad was strong enough then it would be the McCain campaign playing defense, responding on the Obama campaign's terms, not theirs. If done right the spot could work like a swift-boat ad, only raising legitimate issues.

What Obama Could Do.

I just occurred to me what the Obama campaign could do to regain the initiative. They could take a little lesson from Karl Rove and go after his biggest strength, the idea that McCain puts "Country First". They should make a TV spot using McCain's flip-flops and Palin's lack of preparation for the vice-presidency and question whether he is really putting country first. They should go right up to, but perhaps not explicitly make the point, that McCain would rather win an election than do what he thinks is right for the country.

A borderline Rovian commerical that nevertheless makes serious, legitimate points could get a lot of press attention and create a new impression of Obama as "tough." It takes the battle into McCain territory.

This USA Today Poll, ctd.

Ok. This poll, showing Obama still in the lead -- on average -- stops me from hyperventilating.

This USA Today Poll...

Can't possibly be right? Can it? A ten point lead among likely voters??

McCain's Psyche (or, is being able to hold two opposing ideas in your head really the mark of genius?)

Today we have McCain saying this on Face the Nation with regard to Palin giving interviews:

"Within the next few days and I'm strongly recommending that she come on 'Face the Nation' with Bob Schieffer," McCain said in an interview that was taped on Saturday.

But it seems McCain needs to stay on top of his campaign more… or vice versa. Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, wasn’t going to let his boss get in the way of winning the election:

"She'll agree to an interview when we think it's time and when she feels comfortable doing it," Davis said on "Fox News Sunday."

This brings up two thoughts. First, who really is in charge here of McCain’s campaign? He says he is “strongly recommending” her to come on the show. But as the boss couldn’t he do more than that? Couldn’t he simply say that she will come on next week? Or at least he could have said, “WE will have her on” at such and such a time. But this along with Davis’ statement makes me wonder just a little bit how much he is in charge of what’s going on, or that maybe he is choosing to NOT be so involved in managing her exposure. Why? Time, maybe. Or maybe it’s a small, sad way that he tries maintain the scrap of dignity that remains within him. He can’t get his hands that dirty. Or... maybe he can’t bare to.

Which makes me wonder, what the hell is going on inside McCain’s head? A man that had, or felt that he had, so much personal honor has had to endure wave after wave of soul-eating compromise over the course of the last two years. I can’t imagine that he, of all people, doesn’t feel strongly that a public servant must be able to answer tough questions, but here he is playing the game that keeps the public in the dark. Politicians break their promises and change positions with the winds all the time, of course. But, this is John McCain with his enormous ego and enormous belief in his personal honor that we’re talking about. What has he had to do, psychologically, to enable him to betray his own personal sense of honor on so basic a level? Does he tell himself he'll make everything alright if he wins? Has he gone to Bush levels of denial? (Ok, that’s probably not possible, but some level of denial is probably necessary).

Ultimately, what does question of psychology say about his performance as president? Will he keep what must be roiling emotions bottled up? Is he holding back a tide of guilt that will be unleashed in a flurry of legislative and policy drama come 2009? (George Packer has an interesting point on this here.) John McCain has been adjusting his mind to the political realities of the moment for two years. But his psychology has never looked past Election day. If he wins… what is his mind going to look like after?