Thoughts on The Return of the King, Extended Version

So I recently saw The Hobbit: The Unexpected Journey and really enjoyed it. I will probably see it again before it leaves the theater and multiple times after it comes out on DVD. However, it will be another year before the second movie comes out, and I was feeling Middle Earth-deprived.

Faramir-Eowyn scenes that are thankfully

included in the extended version

So I rewatched Lord of the Rings for the millionth time!

Here, finally, is my review of The Return of the King, the extended version. I have reviewed the extended versions of both The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers (I actually started these reviews in 2007--hence, the "finally".)

I put off watching the extended version of The Return of the King because I remembered the movie as fight scenes, more fight scenes, even more fight scenes, fight fight fight fight scenes. Some dialog.

And although I am a devotee of action movies from The Fugitive to The Avengers, I get bored after a couple of fight scenes, especially if a single scene doesn't end after about 2 minutes. (I really don't care how many people an Oliphant tramples--my reaction isn't disgust; just lack of interest.) 

There is a lot of fighting in the extended version of The Return of the King. However, the extended version fills in a number of gaps, especially regarding Faramir and Eowyn. Unlike the extended version of Fellowship, which simply provides more information, and the extended version of The Two Towers, which gets downright confusing, the extended version of The Return of the King flows quite nicely between character interactions/dialog and battle sequences. 

The one major hiccup in this flow is, surprisingly, Sam, Frodo, and Gollum. In the release-to-theater version, their scenes balance very neatly with all the other scenes. In the extended version, however, Sam, Frodo, and Gollum practically disappear from the first half of the movie (while taking over the second half; yes, I know, Jackson is following the actual chronology of the book--which just proves that he cut the release-to-theater version very well).

Although this unevenness surprised me, it did help explain The Hobbit!

Richard Armitage as Thorin

As stated above, I enjoyed The Hobbit (Part 1); however, it is NOT for purists. Rather than a tale of lovable Bilbo, Jackson is using other Tolkien material to provide us with pre-LOTR events; it IS Tolkien material, but it is not always specific to The Hobbit. Consequently, the character who moves to the forefront is the Aragorn-type character: the king figure, Thorin.

Martin Freeman as Bilbo

Considering that Thorin is played by Richard Armitage, I have no complaints. And Martin Freeman (Bilbo) is in the movie enough to make me happy. But it does indicate that in his heart, Jackson seems to find returning monarchs slightly more interesting than good-natured hobbits.

This is comparative, of course. It isn't that Jackson doesn't do the hobbits justice--in LOTR, every scene with Sam, Frodo, and Gollum is lovingly and skillfully done; it's just that the king matters slightly more.

And, of course, The Return of the King really is Aragorn's movie: the return of this particular king and what that means to Middle-Earth and to Minis Tirith specifically.

At this point, I have to comment on a common criticism of Tolkien's work--that his evil is too blatantly evil: all the orcs are ugly; Sauron is just a big evil eye, etc. This criticism is sort of true, but I think Tolkien deserves major kudos for his profoundly ambiguous, disturbed, multi-layered, and difficult to categorize characters, such as Denethor (steward of Gondor). Denethor's mixture of despair, pride, vainglory, pain, plus corrupted courage and love makes him one of Tolkien's most memorable creations.

There are also characters like Theoden, Faramir, and Eowyn. These characters are lightly sketched (Tolkien was more interested in his world and its history/languages than even in his action sequences) yet still uniquely motivated and personalized. Not many world fantasy writers can say the same of their characters.

Frodo at Grey Havens

In other words, sticking an elf, a dwarf, a king-to-be, and an everyman into a book does not automatically a great series make.

I was glad I watched the movie again even though it is quite sad. Here's the thing about Jackson: he knows how to deliver high heroic moments that clutch at your heart. I sobbed like a baby during, oh, the last twenty minutes (here's the other thing about Jackson: he gives you about five endings). But--and I say this as someone who hates, um, particular kinds of endings--it is the perfect ending. By keeping it, Jackson's respect for Tolkien's vision comes through.

In the end, it's that respect I appreciate most.

Grey Havens

Thoughts on The Two Towers, Extended Version

I consider the extended version of Fellowship better than the cut version. Not so with Two Towers. I consider the cut version (with one exception) to be far superior to the extended version.

I've seen the cut version of Two Towers several times, and I've always considered it pretty straightforward and streamlined. After seeing the extended version, I must congratulate Peter Jackson on making such intelligent cuts. The extended version is downright convoluted. Talk about confusing! And I'm reasonably well-versed in Tolkien lore.

The extended scenes do carry some interest. There's an entire section between Boromir and Faramir which gives you insight into the brothers and their father, Denethor. A line is spoken which is echoed in the cut version: "Now is a chance for Faramir, Captain of Gondor, to show his quality"; when you realize that the line was originally spoken by Faramir's father, it lends the line (spoken the second time by Faramir) some pathos.

Faramir and Boromir

And it's nice to see Sean Bean again. But, still, the scene is very confusing. It's a back-flash, coming at a point in the narrative when we have cut away from the main action (Rohan) to Frodo. It's too many balls in the air and consequently, gives the extended version a clunky feel.

Likewise, there are a number of scenes in the extended version that underscore Aragorn's identity as Isildur's heir. In the books, this is terrifically important. One reason Sauron gets so freaked out--if one can use that phrase about a big, evil eye--regarding the resistance of Gondor is that he believes that Aragorn is coming to reclaim his throne and that Aragorn has the ring.

But in order to make this clear in the movies, Jackson would have had to make the whole Isildur/Gondor/Aragorn-as-Boromir's-boss thing just a tad clearer in the first movie than he did. So I think cutting it in the second made a lot of sense.


Because, really, the Two Towers is about Rohan and the battle with Saruman's forces. Some of the best performances of the movie come out of this storyline. Bernard Hill as Theoden is nuanced far beyond what the role calls for, and he has some of best lines in the movie (hey, I have a yen for weighty dialog). Miranda Otto is marvelous. Karl Urban is totally underused but at least he shows up. And Brad Dourif as Grima is just about as good an ambiguous bad guy as a character can get.

The amazing Brad Dourif

There's a point near the end of Two Towers when Saruman sends the orcs out to trash Helm's Deep. Grima, standing behind him, begins to cry; it is so poignant, it rips at your heart. Here is a self-serving, nasty-minded fellow who believed that his self-serving nasty-mindedness was limited--he wanted a girl, he wanted a little bit of power. And then he discovers that the little bit of power he wanted to wield never mattered to Saruman; Saruman isn't interested in playing power politics with Grima; Saruman is interested in destroying every human being on the planet. It's a huge miscalculation based on evil intent. It's one of Tolkien's subtler moments (the crying isn't in the book but Grima's ambiguity is).*

Back to the extended version: The only scene I regret Jackson cutting between the extended version and the release-to-theater version is a scene where Faramir eulogizes a dead soldier of Sauron's. In both the book and the movie, some rather generalized soldiers from the South stomp up north to help Sauron. Tolkien doesn't say much about them although he gives them "Oliphants." Both Lewis and Tolkien have been accused of insularity in their use of bad guys from the south who bear about them hints of the Arab world. From today's perspective, it is hard not to assume both Lewis and Tolkien are responding to modern terrorism. In fact, however, their insularity is a tad older. They are responding to medieval attitudes towards Arabs which extended back to Hannibal's elephants climbing the Alps to attack Rome.

Which doesn't make it any less insular, of course.

In any case, in the extended version, Faramir gives this nice little speech in which he pities one of the dead soldiers and says, in effect, "Why is his honor any less than mine?"

Lewis would have approved.

It's nice because first of all, it makes clear that Faramir is the more introspective of the two brothers and therefore, prepares the viewer for Faramir's rejection of the ring. It's also nice because second of all, I get tired of orcs (BAD GUYS, BAD GUYS, BAD GUYS) and their residences (BAD PLACES, BAD PLACES, BAD PLACES). I mean, really, what kind of civilization is Mordor? It is one big desolation; what do its occupants eat? I assume even orcs eat meat and carbohydrates. At least, I assume they don't just eat each other and rocks.

I don't have a problem with this most of the time because Tolkien was writing world fantasy with mythic good pitted against mythic evil, and the bad guys aren't automatically supposed to be Grimas (ambiguous and undecided villains). They are supposed to just be bad. But I thought it was a nice touch to point out that badness has its own agendas and its own ways of garnering support. No way those guys from the South are stomping north because of some big eye. They're thinking, "What will we get out of this?" and Faramir's speech pointed that out.

However, Jackson may have thought he was cutting it close to the PC line with the "Oliphants" anyway, so the speech got cut.

He left in, however, one of the best lines of the movie given by Bernard Hill:

"What can men do," Theoden says to Aragorn, "against such reckless hate?" What indeed?

My second favorite line comes at the end of the speech Theoden gives right before the battle starts:

Where is the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing? They have passed like rain on the mountain, like wind in the meadow. The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow. How did it come to this?

Give Tolkien credit--Two Towers is one of the few pro-war/warrior movies I've seen where people spend a large percentage of the time feeling hopeless and wondering how things got so bad. Which is how good people usually respond to terror and war and reckless hate.

To end: in terms of weighty speeches, I don't even mind Sam's speech, but I confess that what I really like is the beginning portion--from Tolkien's point of view, there is no return, no going back to Exactly The Way Things Were. It's a principle fantasy writers should never forget:

It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened?

And Frodo's end is foreshadowed.

*For Voyager fans, Brad Dourif plays Suder, the sociopath who tries to control his sociopathy with Tuvok's help. There's a 2-parter where Suder--who has laid off the killing due to Tuvok's influence--must help save Voyager by killing intruders. The despair with which he agrees to this course of action is wrenching; he knows that once he starts killing again, there is no going back. The Voyager series was lucky to get Dourif!

Thoughts on Fellowship of the Ring, Extended Version

The masterly Sean Bean quoting one of my

favorite lines: It is a strange fate that we should

suffer so much fear and doubt over so small a thing.

Such a little thing.

I have moved this review forward since I am FINALLY, after 5 years, going to be reviewing Return of the King, the Extended Version.

Following are my thoughts on Fellowship of the Ring, Extended Version:

1. Extended scenes--The extended scenes do add a lot. However, the one editing choice I have never understood--in both the theatrical and extended versions--involves Moria. There's an extra scene in there (that's not in the book) with a collapsing bridge. It goes on for about five minutes, and it is completely unnecessary. Jackson left it in the release-to-theater version and cut out almost all of the extra Lothlorien scenes.

I think this was a huge mistake. Most of the women I've talked to, both those who like Tolkien and those who got dragged to the theater, wish there had been more Lothlorien stuff in the release-to-theater version. It would have been very easy for Jackson to cut the completely unnecessary bridge scene and add a little more of Lothlorien.

Yes, I know the movie was probably aimed at young men, but studies show that most successful movies attract both sexes, and it would have been such an easy substitution to make.

2. Lighting--Jackson's lighting is the weirdest thing in the world. I actually like it; it has a staged/picture quality to it. But it is strange. One minute everything is dark with cool, glowing lights all over the place. The next minute everything is in full sunlight with everything glinting. The whole thing is like watching CSI episodes over and over and over. Cool. But startling.

3. Casting--I consider The Lord of the Rings movies the best cast trilogy of, oh, the last 100 years or so. Okay, that's an exaggeration, but there are few book-to-movie films I've seen that completely and totally and without misstep cast the characters exactly the way I picture them. Except for Elrond, and I like Hugo Weaving so much, I don't care.

Interesting note about Hugo Weaving. Pre-Jackson, Tolkien's elves are portrayed much the way the Vulcans used to be portrayed before Enterprise came along: good and pure and wise and wonderful. And then Hugo Weaving showed up, and suddenly the elves (like the Vulcans) got edgy and a little annoyed and somewhat sarcastic. Which is frankly more interesting.

The glasses were added by a blogger!

About the hobbits: I know people confuse Merry and Pippin. I never did although that could partly be because I ran across Dominic Monaghan before Fellowship came out (Hetty Wainthrop mysteries). He isn't portrayed exactly as Merry is in the book, but he is given enough lines to clarify that he is the more perceptive and mature of the Merry and Pippin duo.

Sean Astin and Elijah Wood are perfect. I happen to think Elijah Wood's range of emotion was greater than Jackson pulled out of him. By the end of the first film, Frodo has been reduced to (1) scared and (2) more scared. If you watch the beginning of Fellowship, Wood displayed a much broader range. Frankly, I don't think Frodo interested Jackson much OR Frodo represented a type to Jackson. He gave all the ambiguity to Aragorn and Boromir.

I quite like Viggo Mortenson as Aragorn. The book makes clear that Aragorn is supposed to be completely unattractive at first glance--a rangy Ranger with absolutely no appeal to civilized folk like Butterbur, the Prancing Pony owner. I think Viggo pulled this off. He isn't as fine an actor as either McClellan (hard competition) or Sean Bean, but like Keanu Reeves, he knows how to act physically (which is pretty important). The scene at the end of Fellowship where Mortensen walks down the hill towards the cast of thousand-De Mille crowd of orcs is very, very cool.

McClellan of course occupies his own class of perfection. And Sean Bean is so phenomenal that I hold him personally responsible for the cohesiveness of the latter half of the movie.

Which brings us to subplots.

5. Subplots--This is the third or fourth time I've seen the movie, the second time I've watched the extended version. The subplot with Aragorn is a lot clearer after that many viewings, but I don't think it was as clear as it could have been. The tension between him and Boromir, the (real) issue of Aragorn's allegiance, Boromir's (legitimate) concern for his people, and Aragorn's reluctance to test his rights to leadership are great themes and could have been emphasized. Not expanded because, okay, the movie is really long, but pointed to more clearly. There's lots and lots of implied dialog on these issues, delivered mostly by the masterly McClellan and Weaving, and the last scenes between Aragorn and Boromir are very effective, but the release-to-movie version really fell down here. (The extended version makes these themes much clearer. Even with the extended version, though, I think they could have been emphasized. I think Jackson, who I like, is rather like Shyamalan, who I also like: throw enough stuff at the screen, and you get a good movie. Which is sort of true. But sort of not.)

6. Speaking of the final scene--First of all, I never thought the Boromir being shot full of arrows scene funny. I can see why some people rolled their eyes, but I've got a C.S. Lewis-medieval knights-Beowulf fan inside me, and I've always thought it utterly chivalrous and honorable and gosh darn heroic! I also don't find it improbable. The human body can take an amazing amount of damage before it shuts down, as one realizes when one watches Civil War documentaries.

In fact, that whole last scene is one of my absolute favorite battle scenes in all the trilogy. It's exactly like a Civil War documentary, only with the added bonus of really old statues and much cooler armor.

And I love the chivalrous, heroic stuff. I don't think anyone but Sean Bean could have pulled off that last scene, but he is Sean Bean, and he did. His confession to Aragorn and his plea for his people, Aragorn's promise and his kiss on Boromir's forehead all hit a note of high medieval romance. It's better than King Arthur because stupid Launcelot isn't there to drip excuses all over the place.

Tangent-time: Questions have been posed (many by my brother) about why teenage girls get into stuff like yaoi and vampire gangs and such--that is, why do teenage girls and women like me get into male to male dedication/loyalty/devotion? And I think the reason is that these types of relationships don't imply subordination in the sense of weakness (Boromir is not weak for, finally, professing loyalty to Aragorn) and also because the relationship allows for objectivity. It isn't oh-now-I'm-in-love-I-must-immediately-lose-my-ability-to reason (and therefore get together with a guy who will beat me because I luuuuuv him so much). Both parties are allowed to retain their dignity. I think this is possible for female/male relationships, by the way, there just isn't a whole set of classical literature out there that deals with it. (Dorothy Sayers and Jane Austen all by themselves do not constitute a class; George Eliot wrote about the desire of women for this type of relationship, but she didn't actually try to create one on paper: Dorothea marries a gasbag and then a self-promoting politician--a nice self-promoting politician but still--)

Darcy's Friendship with Bingley: Chapter 3

Chapter 3 of A Man of Few Words, in The Gentleman the Rake, tackles Elizabeth's visit to Netherfield. I used this chapter to poke some good-natured fun at Darcy and Bingley.

Thomas Gibson as Greg:

He even looks like Darcy!

There's an episode of Dharma & Greg in which Greg plans a romantic weekend in "snow" country for Dharma, who has never seen snow. Their romantic get-away consists of him carefully planning exactly how long it will take them to reach their destination, so they can arrive in time for a romantic sunset. This means NO STOPPING. Although Dharma evinces interest in several passing tourist sites--"Oh, that one looked interesting!"--Greg focuses on the road: "We have to keep to a schedule!"

Woodbury Sibs at a Site: Niagara Falls

Needless to say, this is Darcy. This is also my dad. Our road trips from New York State to California when I was growing up were carefully planned to allow for certain sites and excursions but never at the expense of our nightly reservations. I graduated high school believing that people never traveled any other way. When I planned my own cross-country trip in my early twenties, it never occurred to me to simply drive as much as I could on any given day, stop, and stay at the most convenient hostelry. One does not travel that way. One examines maps, measures distances, calculates miles per day, and makes reservation sat least two months in advance.

And, truthfully, I would probably do the same thing now.

But it's still amusing.

Bingley, of course, is the exact opposite. Austen makes clear that Bingley rented Netherfield because that's what his friends--eh hem, Darcy--do: they live on big estates passed down from their parents. Austen also makes clear that Bingley doesn't have a clue what to do with a big estate.

This, however, doesn't bother Bingley in the least. Bingley is one of those annoying yet endearing people who takes life completely as it comes--"Hey, I rented Netherfield; wow, that was interesting"--yet always seems to land on his feet.  Or maybe it is just that people like Bingley take the ensuing consequences so good-naturedly that they come out seemingly unscathed.

And in all fairness, one of the nicer things about Bingley is how completely confident and content he is with himself. Bingley can brag about writing letters quickly, and Darcy can question, "What is laudable in a precipitance which must leave very necessary business undone?" and Bingley can laugh and change the subject: "I assure you, that if Darcy were not such a great tall fellow, in comparison with myself, I should not pay him half so much deference."

There's no snideness in this last remark, by the way. Bingley is the ultimate guileless man.

For a worrier like Darcy, a friend like Bingley is enormously relaxing. For a living-in-the-present guy like Bingley, Darcy is a necessary point of stability (as Jane will also be).

It is a very believeable, and lightly drawn, relationship, proving that Austen could create strong male as well as female characters, though she did concentrate more on the latter.

Gothicism and The Terminator: Fear & the Romance of the Cool

Recently, the Mike-Kate Video Club reviewed The Terminator. I went ahead and re-watched Terminator 2: Judgment Day. Good stuff! But the combination of cool technology plus anti-technology message still bewildered me.

And then I realized: this is neo-Gothicism.

Gothicism, specifically Gothicism in England, was a response to what the English saw as the disappearing past: gone were the monasteries, the priests and nuns and iconic Catholic imagery of the Pre-Reformation world.

Waterhouse's The Lady of Shallot

King Arthur was popular  with Pre-Raphaelites.

That world also included castles and knights and stuff that was slowly but surely departing the English landscape.

Gothicism--like the Pre-Raphaelite movement--was an attempt to recapture this world. After all, let's face it, catacombs, crowns, suits of armor, magic, chivalry, and incense are fairly cool. And the Post-Reformation world--despite Jane Austen and Regency society--was just not as interesting, being so . . . legal and civilized and all.

In fact, the Pre-Reformation world had its fair share of the mundane; it's very easy to glorify and romanticize the past when one is no longer experiencing it. At the same time, turreted castles, armored knights, and Catholic priests were not things 18th century Englishmen would see on an everyday basis, and many people thought this was kind of sad.

Which doesn't mean they wanted it to all come back.

Your average Englishman of the 18th century was not especially fond of Catholicism, associating it with the pope, Inquisitions, and Spain. Moreover, he--and she--tended to link the imagery of Catholicism with those crazy Europeans having that crazy Revolution in France. Colonialists in the Americas wanting the right to appoint judges is one thing; Bohemian radicals chopping off people's heads is another, even if the Bohemian radicals are also anti-Catholic.

The point was . . . England wasn't like that: no Catholics, no radicals, and no excessive aristocratic tradition that gets its heads lopped off. English people respected law, science, and God (the order depended on the person).

In this environment, Gothicism burgeoned as a delectable source of romance and fear. Wasn't the past great?! Boy, we hope it doesn't come back!

This IS Cameron's vision in Terminator 2. (The first movie is really just a fun action flick, where the evil robots of the future fulfill a particular narrative need.) Terminator 2 really pushes the technology-is-evil message. And yet, this message lies side by side with cool effects, cool robots, cool guns, cool . . . EVERYTHING!

It is possible that Cameron comes from the same mindset that wants everyone to go back to living on farms without giving up modern medicine; this pick-and-choose disconnect whereby idealists select favored elements from both pastoral AND urban paradises always makes me roll my eyes; yeah, because nothing is related to anything else; the Industrial Revolution was just about kids working in mills, sure (insert major sarcastic tone).

In any case, I don't think Cameron thought though his ideology any more than the Matrix writers (of the first movie) thought through their argument. In both cases, what we're seeing is neo-Gothicism pure and simple: worshipping the thing one hates. As Mike and I have discovered, 80's movies are underscored with unease about technology. And yet, well, really, how can one give it up? Especially, when film-makers can use it to better their effects?

As I've said before, if aliens ever do show up, they will by-pass the U.N. (despite its Director of Outer Space Affairs) and the universities with their profound questions about life and head straight for Wall Street, i.e. the people selling the cool gadgets. Of course, the aliens' definition of a "cool" gadget might be My Little Pony, but still . . . isn't it far more likely? And wouldn't it just freak everybody out?

In any case, thank goodness that the idealists won't ever win, human nature being what it is. Fear and the romance of the cool produces awesome art.

Latest Peaks Island Press Release: Fox & Wolf!

Fox & Wolf by Eugene Woodbury is now available!

Fox & Wolf is a modern action fantasy novel that involves shape-changing teenagers. The story covers the drama and perils of friendship and politics in a Japanese high school plus the drama and perils of family/economic scandal. Like many of Eugene Woodbury's novels, it combines striking action scenes with thoughtful, even philosophical, insights regarding human behavior: how do our pasts influence our current choices; what do our choices say about ourselves; how can we exercise our abilities to be who we are?

Peaks Island Press currently has the following books available:

Fox & Wolf (currently as e-book; coming soon in print!)

The Gentleman & the Rake (in e-book and print form)--this is the omnibus version of both A Man of Few Words and Mr. B Speaks! (and currently has one star on Amazon by someone who presumably doesn't read product descriptions)
 
Serpent of Time (in e-book and print form)

(Non) Dancing Darcy: A Man of Few Words, Chapter 2

In Chapter 2, Darcy begins to mingle with Netherfield's neighbors. This is where I placed the first (of many) infamous confrontations between Darcy & Elizabeth: the scene at Lucas Lodge where she refuses to dance with him.

Despite Darcy's reluctance to dance at a non-dancing event, people in Austen's novels are constantly dancing at non-dancing events. Members of small house parties are continually pushing back the rugs, sending someone to the piano, and dancing a few reels. Dancing appears to have been the equivalent of asking, "So, what's on television?" And it would have been far more similar to watching an hour long drama than to jitterbugging for the duration of a single song.

Harker is second from Ehle after Davis.

One of my favorite scenes in the BBC Pride & Prejudice takes place at the Netherfield ball: during one of the dance scenes, you can see Susannah Harker (Jane Bennet) counting the beats. I think the actor rather than the character is doing the counting, but I think the bobs of her head add a neat touch of realism. The dances and reels at both balls and house parties would have involved an extensive number of steps and some could get rather complicated. They also would have lasted for twenty or more minutes. 

Darcy knows how to dance, of course, but would rather talk. However, these are relative irritations. His famous remark to Sir William Lucas, "Every savage can dance," I propose as a hopeless attempt (on Darcy's part) to stem the tide of dance-related small-talk.

For a definition of the kind of small-talk Darcy loathes, check out Data from Star Trek: TNG.

And for a futuristic Sir William, check out some more Star Trek: TNG. (Commander Hutchinson is a perfect Sir William: he loves company, he will talk about anything, and he is ultimately a kindly man.)

Great Character Actor: Alicia Coppola

Alicia Coppola shows up in a lot of mystery shows--therefore, I see Alicia Coppola quite a lot. She's been an exasperated good guy on Monk; a ruthless vindictive wife on Law & Order: Criminal Intent; a heartless villain on CSI:LV; she's shown up on NCIS and JAG and even Star Trek: Voyager.

What I like most about Coppola is that no matter what part she is playing, she IS that part. There's no bleeding through from other parts. In contrast, whenever the very talented John Glover shows up on a show, he is always creepy, strange guy with an agenda. Every time.

But Coppola as a villain is entirely villainous; as vindictive, entirely vindictive; as innocent, entirely innocent. I never think of other roles while she is on the screen although I certainly recognize her!

My favorite Coppola role is Lt. Cmdr Faith Coleman on NCIS and JAG. Coleman is an intelligent, self-possessed attorney who keeps an immaculate desk and very sharp pencils. There's a great scene between Coppola and Michael Weatherly ("Unsealed") where Dinozzo teases Coppola:

Tony: Is that your idea of a sharp pencil? You know which one I’m talking about. Not gonna poke anyone’s eye out with that one.

As Tony is leaving, Coleman picks up a fistful of pencils and checks their tips. "Now, that's funny!" Tony calls from the door, but Coleman just shrugs, satisfied that all her pencils are indeed quite sharp.

And I like to see actresses with freckles. It somehow makes them so endearing and relatable!

How to Handle the Big Bad: Person of Interest

There's a lot of shows out there whose arcs depend on an ongoing conspiracy. Monk kind of did this with the six-fingered man (although the series thankfully wrapped up its conspiracy with a classic mystery explanation). The Mentalist has taken its conspiracy way too far. Castle uses an underlying conspiracy for Beckett's mother's murder (I gave up trying to follow the conspiracy connections). NCIS occasionally has one, but Bellisario is too wise to let a conspiracy run his seasons.

And Person of Interest does it. I don't mean the machine, but the ongoing conspiracy amongst the police/mob/government. (Spoilers of Season 1 below.)

Person of Interest makes it work. In his post about the show, Eugene remarks, "There are a couple of Moriartys, but even here Jonathan Nolan has them driven by straightforward goals and comprehensible motivations. No insane or insanely omniscient antagonists here."

The head at the front has a face: Enrico Colantoni as Elias!

Nolan has also, as Eugene remarks, given his conspiracy a face: Enrico Colantoni. This was such a remarkably intelligent choice, I literally applauded the episode that revealed him as the big bad. Way to go, guys! Colantoni is a reasonably well-known character actor. He has great range from sweet-tempered to unexpectedly dangerous. And he looks right. He's given his character, Elias, a kind of hunched walk that is reminiscent of classic mobsters without being too cliche. Perfect!

Unfortunately, failure to provide a "face" is exactly the mistake that far too many directors, script-writers (and composition students) make. They keep the identity of the big bad (thesis) hidden until it grows out of proportion, becoming so nebulous and scary that when he (it) does show up, he has to be either completely round the bend (Sherlock) or a "just kidding, actually, this guy is a front for the REAL big bad" (one of the seasons of The Mentalist; as stated in an earlier post, I tend to ignore the Red John episodes on The Mentalist completely).

In comparison, let's look at how much more effective it is to introduce a "face" immediately:

1. X-Files. As Eugene has pointed out, the big bad aren't the aliens; they are the government conspirators. Deep Throat (the lovable Jerry Hardin) and Cigarette Smoking Man (the excellent William B. Davis) were introduced early in the series and became instant fan faves.

2. Star Trek: TNG, Stargate, Stargate: Atlantis: Here's the bad guy. Fight him! Win!! Now, that's good television.

3. Star Wars IV, V, VI: Darth Vader (I mention this in comparison to I, II, and III in which the bad guy is a fuzzy guy on a screen--who cares? Even a heavy-breathing bad guy in a mask is more interesting.)

4. Columbo: An unfair example since we know who the big bad is from the first minute. But it is effective!

5. Leverage ended Season 4 with a "surprise" face BUT it was a face fans had seen before and very nicely paid off an earlier season. (However, the "surprise" barely made it--again, too much build up can cause an ending to fall flat.)

There's a reason why, when Stoker turned his novel into a play, Dracula took center stage. Horror writers like King can hold off on showing readers the big bad because reader actually can imagine the unimaginable. But once the villain MUST be seen, he should be seen immediately.

Last Presidential Debate

Thank goodness.

Yeah, I know; I don't have to watch. And I actually didn't start watching until 9:30. A National Election at this point enters the realm of everyone simply waiting for a train wreck. There really isn't much more that can be "revealed" through a debate. And I don't much like waiting around for people to mess up.

I'm watching CNN despite the Daily Show's extremely astute and hilarious comments on the pointlessness of the "analysts" ("Ryan looks annoyed. You need a face analyst to tell you that he looks annoyed?!")

Obama is doing much better. But it makes me wonder, Where was he in the first debate?

Romney is holding his own. And so far, he is doing a good job coming back to his main points. Obama is much more on the attack. It's hard not to read petulance into his behavior. Both Romney and Obama's bases like their candidates to get aggressive, but the bases will vote for their candidates anyway. Middle voters don't find aggressiveness as attractive.

An Israel question--I've mentioned that I'm a hawk. I'm also pro-Israel. As far as I'm concerned, the United States would be a fool to back anyone in the Middle East except Israel.

Obama spun the question towards Iran. So did Romney. I guess that is what the question was really getting at. But it underscores my point. By this point in the election, the candidates are simply giving mini-speeches: "Oh, you mentioned chocolate. That reminds me of my position on the military."

The moderator isn't as interesting as Martha Raddatz.

Obama keeps saying, "That's not true." And he keeps needling Romney. I don't like this. I decided at the beginning of this year that Obama was not the gentleman I thought he was. And nothing has happened yet this election season to change my mind.

Romney is doing a good job saying, "This is what I did/will do." He does have a better track record than Obama.

But then, Romney did just refer to Obama's international tours as "apology tours," which is a fairly sharp needle.

"Nothing Governor Romney said is not true. Every fact checker said . . . "

I greatly dislike this type of generalized ad populum attack. It makes Obama sound less credible to me.

Especially since, instead of responding to Romney's criticism of his performance as president (skipping Israel), Obama is using a trip he made before he was in office. It is actually a smart response. But man, is anyone noticing that the president completely avoided Romney's main point?

Obama claims, "[The American people] can look at my track record." Uh. He seems to be using the "if I say it enough times, it must be true" approach. This approach can be effective, but it makes the skin crawl. Romney, at least, is trying to use specifics.

Obama keeps avoiding the issues by attacking Romney: "You've been all over the map." From the point of view of pure efficiency, this is not a bad approach. But I despise it.

It is one thing to say, "You are wrong and here's why." It is another to say, "I'm not going to talk about how to make the United States look strong in the eyes in the world; I'm going to mock the other guy instead and talk about how much people don't like him."

It also has a forced feel. I feel like Obama's advisers said, "Every time Romney stumps you, just attack him as wishy-washy." Obama's statement, "Everything you said isn't true" came after he went, "Uhhhh."

Obama is taking more time. Romney asked for an opportunity to catch up and was turned down. He took it like a gentleman!

Romney is doing a good job praising the administration when he agrees with things Obama has done. See, this is how a gentleman acts. 

Obama just made a point by saying, "This nation, ME . . . uh, this administration did accomplish . . . "

I dunno Obama. I think the ME was more honest.

Let's talk about China! Obama played the "keep jobs at home" card. Hey, I know what it is like to lose a job because I'm not willing to edit material for $1/hr (seriously). But I still think open borders is the future of the world. So call me Star Trek. But I don't see any real alternative.

Obama is "playing" quips. I know this sounds biased. But that's how his little digs at Romney sound. They are quite different from "I knew Jack Kennedy, and Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy," which was swift, cruel, and apropos. Obama's "quips" sound fed ("hey, Obama, make sure you get in that nasty crack!").

It's childish.

Romney has finally discussed the idea of "managed bankruptcy"! Good for him. I personally think that companies that are doing badly should not be "rescued" by the government. It is not the government's job to invest in privately owned companies. Like it or not, the United States is not a socialist state. Capitalism can work--not flawlessly but reasonably well--if it is allowed to work intelligently. Governments getting in bed with big business does not help capitalism work intelligently.

Obama kept interrupting Romney during Romney's time. Obama is taking more time. Have I mentioned the inability of Obama et al. to let other people talk (and think) for themselves?

They did end with only a 30 second difference (Obama took the extra 30 seconds).

Closing arguments: Obama did make me chuckle with "you've now heard way too many television commercials." Romney also laughed.

And . . . Obama is playing the populist argument. Oh, he has a plan! To bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States. Blah, blah, blah. I just don't think that's the future. 

Romney is going to make the future better. Everyone is going to make the future better. Romney promises he can work across the aisle. I actually believe he can more than Obama. But that's because I believe that Romney is ultimately a kindly man who listens. I think Obama is a nice man who doesn't listen.

It was a better debate (overall) than the first debate! I thought Romney came across as much more stately than Obama, but Obama did (barely) hold his own. They ended on a much more civil note.The Obama Family did a better job mingling with the Romney Family. Interestingly enough, I think the one time Obama broke stride in his little digs was when Romney said nice things about him. I do think that Obama is a good man at heart.

But Romney has the strength of believing that he can "learn" the office. And I believe he can. 

Brief Note on Second Presidential Debate

I watched about three minutes of the debate. At this point, everyone has said what everyone wants to say. The views are simply getting more and more entrenched.

As a brief note, solely regarding body language, both Romney and Obama look rather uncomfortable. I can't imagine a "town hall meeting" is either one of these men's particular cup of tea. However, Obama is doing a much, much better job looking engaged, interested. He is still using more time.

Truth is, the only politician who has ever looked completely cool wandering around a stage was Dubya--man, that guy wore his suits well. He had that baggy slouch thing going for him. He looked comfortable. Obama and Romney look slick but not particularly comfortable.

It would be far more interesting to watch Biden and Ryan debate again, just because they seemed to enjoy it so much.* But apparently, both parties felt that more debates with the presidential candidates was worth the extra strain. I'm not sure I agree. But when the stakes are high . . .

*After last week's debate, some CNN analysts chided Ryan, in a kidding way, for talking to Biden as if they were contemporaries. One of the analysts said, "Woah, Sunny Boy."

I can't say it bothers me to have a 42-year-old man perceived as a mere youngster, but I think the analysts missed the point: in many ways, Ryan's experience more closely matches Biden's than it does Obama's or Romney's. A number of analysts mentioned Biden's use of the word "malarkey." What they failed to mention was the exchange that preceded the word. Biden used the word "stuff." The moderator said, "What's that?" Ryan laughed and said, "It's Irish." Biden then said, "It means malarkey" at which point Ryan nodded.

Both men come from similar backgrounds with similar service in government. I don't think it ever occurred to Ryan that he was talking "up" or "down" to an older man.

I say that because I think the age gap does occur to Ryan when he discusses Romney. Ryan doesn't display any hero-worship towards Romney--he's not that kind of man--but there is a rather touching regard in his references to Romney. Biden is one of the boys. Romney is less easily categorized.

The Only Vice-Presidential Debate

Biden has a Giuliani-like conversational style. Ryan seems to get nervous when giving a speech but is extremely relaxed in meetings. It will be interesting to see which style prevails for each man tonight.

Whatever the case, Ryan is just fun to watch! He is a very handsome man in a craggy, interesting way. He may run the Dubya-risk except Ryan looks amused rather than bored when he doesn't agree with his opponent.

So far Biden and Ryan are far more respectful to the moderator than Romney and Obama were to theirs.

Biden is trying to get Ryan riled. But Ryan thinks like a congressman in a meeting where the debate will continue for several days. He keeps hammering away at a single point but not as forcefully as Romney or as desperately as Biden.

The debate is kind of boring so far. International politics are important, but I'm not sure how much impact they will have on this election. I've written elsewhere that in National elections, Americans like to kill their winter king. Kill the winter king and we will get a better harvest. Forget wrong or right. It's totally atavistic.

Moving on to unemployment. Biden, selling a populist image, has relaxed. Ryan repeats his and Romney's 5-point plan. This is wise, but I wish he would respond to Biden's accusations. Ryan is quite good at rebuttals. I get the impression that his staff told him NOT to start an argument.

Ryan just scored: "I think the vice-president very well knows: words don't always come out the right way."

AND Ryan did a GREAT job selling Romney's personal generosity: "Romney won't tell you these stories. He gives 30% of his income to charity: more than the two of us combined."

Biden is staying on task though--he's a way better debater than Obama.

They are both starting to act more like debaters, addressing each other, directly disagreeing with specific points.

Medicare, Social Security, and ObamaCare (which term, Obama "owned"): as I mentioned above, Biden is a much better debater than Obama. He has warmed up, and he is fighting Obama's battle. But Ryan is beginning to fight back.

Biden is starting to interrupt Ryan too much. He is using more time than Ryan. These interruptions may backfire.

Biden does have more "experience" to call on. I trust Ryan's facts and figures more, but I'm not sure that  facts & figures sell as well as "experience."

Ryan did managed to get in the idea: "When a candidate can't run on his record, he tries to make people scared of his opponent."

Tax cuts:  Ryan tackled the small business question. Thank you, Ryan! I'm so tired of the stupid Scrooge McDuck imagery that the Democrats use: oooh, we will tax rich people more because they have ALL the money. Stupid populist pandering; it really makes me sick.

Biden keeps thinking Ryan is using his time when Ryan is actually right within his time. Guess Democrats think that nobody has the right to talk instead of them. Look at how Obama snapped at Lehrer.

Elitists. 

Biden does know how to play to his base: "It is the responsibility of the Afghans to take care of their own security." Many moderates feel this way. It's a kind of cautious isolationism. I'm frankly a hawk--probably one of the few people in America who thought going into Iraq was a good idea. But Biden makes a strong argument that speaks to the American public.

This moderator asks really good questions! I'm impressed.

I'm not sure why Ryan didn't respond to Biden's insistent, "We are sending in more Afghans to do the job!" It wasn't a missed opportunity. He seemed to think Biden doesn't know what he is talking about. I don't know enough about Afghanistan politics to know. 

Abortion: the moderator asks really, really good questions!

I'm impressed that Ryan didn't try to qualify/soften his position. He is definitely pro-life!

Biden has also made a good response; it is actually fairly close to mine: I have my personal morality, but I don't automatically impose it on the public, which I perceive as principally secular--not in nature but in operation.

Biden has hammered on Romney's 47% remark. Wonder why Obama didn't? (I don't know exactly what Romney said, but I'm not sure that liberal Democrats understand that even people on welfare will often perceive those other people on welfare as leeches, not them. Does anyone actually think they ARE that 47%?)

The last two questions were good--what would you say to a returning soldier and what can you offer the American people in terms of character?

Biden is still whining about his time. He is using more time! Man, Obama and Biden are cry-babies: they both talked longer . . . Biden talked a minute more than Ryan.

The closing remarks were strong. Personally, I'd call this debate a draw with Ryan making a strong showing (as a non-incumbent, this was very important!), especially since he did his job!!! He backed Romney to the hilt.

The moderator, Martha Raddatz, gets an A+!

Quiet Darcy: A Man of Few Words, Chapter 1 continued

Recently, The Gentleman & the Rake came out in print! This omnibus includes updated versions of Mr. B Speaks! and A Man of Few Words. As I did with Mr. B Speaks! I am now posting notes about A Man of Few Words.

One of my major objectives in Chapter 1 was to establish my interpretation of Darcy as an introvert. This was surprisingly easy to do, not just because Austen's text supports that interpretation but because Pride & Prejudice begins with a party!

The party is the assembly ball at Meryton where Darcy makes such a bad impression. The characters present perceive Darcy as proud/unapproachable. I wrote Darcy as uneasy, uncomfortable, with the beginnings of a headache. It is very easy to mistake the latter emotions for the former attitude.

Channeling Darcy's emotions of discomfiture was remarkably easy. I grew up with a dad who would quietly, not at all rudely, slip away from parties, even in his own home, after an hour or so. A few hours of chatter was enough to fill his people quotient for the weekend, even the week.

In addition, my idea of hell is an endless cocktail party. Fire and brimstone sounds downright relaxing in comparison. I'll even take snow and ice. But people standing around with napkins and cheese cubes on sticks, discussing job promotions, car loans, vague politically-correct politics is the kind of thing that makes me want to run for cover, any cover, as quickly as possible.

Consequently, I can easily understand Darcy's curt desire to stop dancing--no matter how insistent Bingley gets--rush home and settle down with a good book.

The First Debate

Both Romney and Obama both look a little uncomfortable when not talking. Romney is WAY more comfortable when talking than Obama is when talking.

They are focusing mostly on the economy which makes sense.

And Obama immediately lost me when he went after "millionaires" for not being small business. I think Democratic presidential candidates sound so stupid when they say stuff like this. I've worked for "small" businesses (less than 40 employees) whose owners were close to millionaires, if not actual millionaires. The idea that only tiny mom and pops equal small business is so ridiculous it makes my brain hurt.

Romney is much more aggressive than Obama about defending his time. I don't know if this will backfire or not.

Romney is being VERY honest about what he would cut, including PBS! That's a very bold statement!! And he comes across as knowing what he is talking about. Obama sounds kind of clueless.

"Does anyone think that Exxon Mobil needs an extra tax break?" Obama asks.

"Sure! Why not?!" I say. A tax break is NOT giving money back! It is simply NOT taking more money away from people/companies that earned it!

Obama keeps employing the bandwagon fallacy: all the economists say so . . . Who are all these people?

The funny thing is, though, Romney and Obama are arguing minutiae. It's kind of blah, blah, blah-ish after awhile.

Romney is much better at bringing the minutiae back to everyday life.

Romney is saying more, but Obama is talking as long--this is because Obama is REALLY slow. Romney gets excited--which is fun!

I always think it is funny when candidates say stuff like "if you are in favor of X, then the other guy is for you," and I think, "Yes!"

So when Obama said, "If you think less regulation is good, then Romney is for you!" I thought, "Yes!"

Lehrer keeps trying to interrupt Romney. It's annoying because he doesn't do it to Obama.

Lehrer did just interrupt Obama. Obama's response was funny. But rude. Lehrer recovered well.

Romney just made a mild verbal gaff, which I won't rewrite. I hate these because I hate how the media and news latch onto them and repeat them over and over again. (Like Reagan quoting John Adams: "Facts are stupid . . . ah, stubborn things.") Yeah, like news people never slip up!

I would feel the same if it was Obama.

Romney is really good at listing points.

Obama has sped up. He is far more comfortable on topics where he can claim an "ethical" approach--it doesn't matter how much money is involved, our children shouldn't suffer!

Romney is still taking less time (but saying more).

Obama shouldn't try to be clever--it falls flat.

To be fair, neither of them are particularly good at the "zinger"!

Obama went WAY over (by debate standards): 40 to 36 minutes.

One of the analysts on CNN just said about Obama's discomfort: "I don't think anyone has spoken to the president like this in the last four years. He actually looked angry sometimes . . ." Another added, "He wouldn't look at Romney. He wouldn't engage with him."

Since I listened more than watched the debate, I didn't note this, but it doesn't surprise me. Romney is an objective reserved introvert. Obama is a subjective reserved introvert. I don't really blame him for not wanting to engage with an aggressive guy he doesn't know. But it doesn't look good for a president to act put-upon when someone criticizes him.

Romney loves to debate. So does Ryan.

First vice-presidential debate: October 11th.

Learning Heaven

The second link is to a short story that I entered in the 2012 Irreantum Fiction Contest: "Adjustments". I didn't win a place but in all honesty, I didn't expect to. I decided to enter the contest at the last moment (ah, the fun of financial worries in the summer) and ended up writing the story in four days to meet the deadline. After I sent it, I felt a sudden, nauseous wave of panic: that's a first draft!!

It is mash-up of two stories, really, and some of the imagery is been-there-done-that (although, as Mike points out about Shakespeare, the object isn't NOT to do the same thing again but to do the same thing again fresh).

Still, it's a story that I'd wanted to "transcribe" (get out of my head) for a long time--mostly, the conversation between the woman and the priest. I find the idea of eternal ethics and morality versus socially constructed ethics and morality completely fascinating. I believe in eternal ethics and morality, but I also believe that we humans--living in our little heads, fully convinced that our time period is the WORST AND BEST time period--respond to ethical problems, correctly and by necessity, from within our social understanding.

For example, the idea of modesty shows up in all cultures. But what that means to us, the Ancient Egyptians, the medievals all sleeping in one room, etc. varies considerably.

And I thought, "Suppose the purpose of early heaven is just to train us to drop our social constructions?" Because, really, despite the Renaissance penchant for painting Israelites circa 5 C.E. in Renaissance dress, does anyone really believe that Heaven (as an ideal) will just be a reflection of OUR time period?

Well, okay, maybe if it is a cross between C.S. Lewis and Inception (a montage of different time periods and possibilities).

But does God really care who wins the next election?

Notes on Man of Few Words, Chapter 1

In Chapter 1 of Man of Few Words, now part of the omnibus, The Gentleman and The Rake, Darcy comes to Netherfield to visit his great friend Bingley. The Darcy of Man of Few Words finds Bingley less concerned with estate maintenance and more concerned with attending local shindigs. This is not because Bingley is a deliberately careless or feckless landlord. Rather, unlike Darcy, Bingley has not been raised to "the manor born." Bingley's father, who was likely in trade, used his fortune to enable his children to live and marry "up"--

Mr. Bingley inherited property to the amount of nearly a hundred thousand pounds from his father, who had intended to purchase an estate, but did not live to do it. Mr. Bingley intended it likewise, and sometimes made choice of his county; but as he was now provided with a good house and the liberty of a manor, it was doubtful to many of those who best knew the easiness of his temper, whether he might not spend the remainder of his days at Netherfield, and leave the next generation to purchase.

Bingley does eventually buy an estate near Pemberley.

It is difficult for Americans, and possibly modern Britishers, to understand the importance of land-owning to members of the nineteenth-century gentry. Although owning property was really just a glorified version of living off rents, for old families--like the Fitzwilliam Darcys--land-owning also brought with it noblesse oblige: an obligation to sustain the entire countryside. Darcy is a remnant of the squires that appear in Richardson's Pamela--a man who, to all intents and purposes, is the god of his estate and environs. Considering his power to force as much money as he wants from his land however he wants, it is to Darcy's credit that his servants and tenants admire him.

It also provides material for his behavior in Man of Few Words, namely his drive to encourage Bingley to take an interest in Netherfield. But let's face it: 100+ years later, Bingley would be a stockbroker or a resort-owner or something far less land-oriented and far more people-oriented.

To be continued . . .

Latest Fiction Release!

Peaks Island Press has released an electronic version of Man of Few Words and Mr. B Speaks! together: the omnibus version! Shown here is the excellent cover designed by Eugene Woodbury.

In honor of this release, I've decided to post a series of notes on Man of Few Words. I posted historical notes for Mr. B Speaks! However, since Austen-related historical notes flood the web, including a few excellent websites, my notes will be confined to explaining what approach I took in my chapters and why.

Convention Notes 2012: Democratic Convention

Overview:

Overall, I would say that the Republican Convention was well-organized with a strong focus on the economy and the American dream. The speeches were consistently good, occasionally better than good. Romney and Ryan presented a plan (with problems).

The Democratic Convention ranged from inane to brilliant. The speakers President Clinton through Biden were strong. There was a focus, but it was mostly negative: "women are getting a raw deal" and "Romney stinks." Obama did not present any specific plan.

I tend to go with positive visions; I despise whiny feminism; and I detest divisive pandering populism. Right now, I hope better things for and from Romney than for and from Obama over the next few months.

PBS did a great job. I actually found Iffel and Woodruff better co-hosts than Lehrer (sorry Lehrer!). They were better at keeping conversations rolling. They asked fairer questions. They made communication-based comments--which, of course, I love. Kudos!

Convention Notes are written in reverse chronological order, the latest incident/speaker first. These are not "live" notes in the sense that I listen to every speech or publish the moment something is said. Mostly, my notes are an overview of each convention's tone, attitude, and communication decisions. I do try to focus on the WAY people communicate than the specific arguments being made.

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6TH

11:00 P.M.

President of the United States Barack Obama:

So wise not to do the stadium thing!

You know, all these politicians with strong marriages are really something else!

"Yes, you do have to go to school in the morning." Okay, I was about to write that I'm not a big fan of the "kissing babies" aspect of politics but that was cute.

Obama has a nice deep voice. (But nobody has James Earl Jones' tones!)

His message is kind of blah at this point, however. And I don't think Obama should go after the RNC. The DNC's attacks on Romney have been so RELENTLESS. Having Obama go after Romney so soon in his speech just makes him look petty.

He wants more time to employ "bold experimentation like Franklin D. Roosevelt."

Ack. Ack. Ack. Franklin D. Roosevelt was the author of Big Daddy government. Ack!

All week, the DNC has been accusing Romney and Ryan for not having a concrete plan. So will Obama have one?

Nothing concrete so far. Lots of platitudes.

"Climate change is not a hoax."

See what I mean about old-school? The challenges to man-created climate change have gained credence and voice in the last five years. The DNC seems more and more lost in the 1980s and 1990s.

More platitudes. Obama is very good at delivering them, and they are well-worded. Still, in face of the RNC's claim that Obama is out of touch with the economy's problems, the platitudes just aren't enough.

As in 2008, Obama is going to do EVERYTHING!

"[Romney] won't tell us how he will end the war in Afghanistan. I will."

How, Obama? Tell us! Tell us!

He didn't. But he's going to use the money to build stuff in America.

He will reform the tax code.

What's this business of "spending money on tax breaks"? Tax breaks simply take less money from people. The money doesn't belong to the government. It belongs to the people (yes, that includes rich people).

He will protect Head Start. Keep students in college.

He won't turn Medicare into a voucher. No elderly person should spend his/her life at the "mercy of Medicare." Based on my dad's medical issues this year, a person in the hospital is at the mercy of the institution paying the bills, no matter who that is. (There's lots and lots of Medicare hoops, believe me.)

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Sorry, but I'm not hearing anything concrete. Lots of "we believe" statements. Everybody will be happy. Everybody will be fed.

Everybody will eat cake.

"My fellow citizens: you were the change."

Everybody will eat cake and feel good about themselves. Yep, he's painting a picture of pure pandering populism.

Obama has failings, but he won't tell us what they are.

"I'm hopeful because of you." (See populist pandering above.)

Obama has powerful delivery. But no way can the DNC claim that Obama presented a more concrete vision than Romney and Ryan. HE DID NOT.

10:00 P.M.

So Biden is speaking tonight.

Dr. Jill Biden speaks.

She teaches at a community college! Good for her!!

She says nice things about her husband.

The Honorable Joe Biden: Praises his wife. Nice. Actually, his words about his wife are some of the most authentic I heard in both conventions. 

"I want to take you inside the White House."

This is what Laura Bush did for her husband in 2004; her image of W. was quite affecting.

"The one thing I learned about Barack is the depth of his heart, and he learned the depth of my loyalty to him." That is quite touching.

Obama's concern doesn't automatically translate into smart political moves. I personally can believe that he means well. But a note about politicians' concerns for us plebs: a concern for plebs doesn't mean that the politician trusts the plebs. Henry VIII (sorry for the comparison, but it is so useful) claimed he was acting for the average Englishman when he cannibalized the monasteries. Doesn't mean the average Englishman wanted Henry VIII paying too close attention to him or his household. 

Can't anyone talk about Obama without attacking Romney?

Am I reading this right: Obama bailed out bankrupt, big-business car companies? That's not a good thing.

"[Romney's] approach may bring the highest profits, but it's not the way to lead from the Oval Office."

Did Biden really just say that? Way to make the Republicans' argument for them!

Biden stumbling over himself doesn't bother me or make me think he doesn't mean what he is saying, etc. I'm smart enough to figure out what he means. What is cute about Biden is that he really doesn't understand how Romney would think that bailing out bankrupt companies is a bad idea--how can anyone who loves cars think that?

I know Osama Bin Laden got taken out on Obama's watch but considering the Democratic resistance to W.'s War on Terror, I just can't give the DNC credit. Bush, Jr. truly went out on a courageous, heavily-criticized limb to put that War on Terror in motion. Maybe it was right. Maybe it was wrong. But in my book, he gets the credit for everything that followed, no one else. (And I didn't go after him from a left or right position when he was in office either.)

Romney's position on Osama Bin Laden during the primaries was actually pragmatic. But it wasn't a smart position for a politician to take.

Biden is going after the Republican "plan." This is a mistake. Clinton did the job of attacking the Republican plan last night. Biden got the arena excited about Obama; he should have ended there.

And going after outsourcing is silly. The international job market IS the future of the economy. This argument makes the DNC look positively reactionary.

(Softly) Stop talking, Biden. You've sold the candidate. Stop talking.

He did end on a strong note. But the speech was way too long.

9:15 P.M. 

It has occurred to me that the DNC might be making a large mistake by not admitting that things aren't going well in the economy. Clinton did the best job of all the speakers trying to combine the message "we are better off" with the perception "things are worse." But by continually arguing that Obama has made things better, the DNC actually might be distancing themselves from the undecided voters by not admitting that things need to change.

Obama could handle this by presenting a plan. Even Yahoo News expects this!

9:10 P.M.

PBS spoke to the opposition, a Republican giving the RNC's views. The Republican Governor actually did a strong, level-headed, soft-voiced job of pointing out the true state of the economy. He dealt with the "war against women" by pointing out it is a contrived argument. Good for him! "Of course [Obama] is going to change the topic." Absolutely!!

Kudos to PBS for doing this (they spoke to a Democrat spokesman during the Republican Convention). 

9:00 P.M.

John Kerry speaks. He isn't much of an iconic image. But I don't suppose the DNC could really not have him talk. 

It's hard to take Kerry seriously about, well, anything. But especially on foreign policy. This is actually not based on Kerry's campaign but on a very funny paragraph in an P.J. O'Rourke essay about Kerry going to some foreign country and walking around looking concerned while not actually doing or saying anything.

In his favor, I think he really believes what he is saying. I think Clinton was just showing off ("you know I should still be your president; really, you know it"). But Kerry is a believer in Obama's right to rule.

"Ask Osama Bin Laden if he is better off than he was four years ago." Well, he's dead. But it's a good line.

Kerry is really attacking Romney, especially for waffling. Methinks the gentleman does protest too much. I suppose there is something cathartic here where Kerry can work off his anger at being depicted as a flim-flam one-dimensional politician by attacking a man he imagines to be more of a flim-flam man. Sorry, Kerry, but Romney still has more substance than you.

Kerry is actually being quite mean. Yuck.

Maybe the DNC figured they could have Kerry give this speech because, unlike Clinton, he has absolutely nothing to lose.

And I just don't buy Kerry or the DNC as hawks. And why go out of one's way to offend military people? Many of them are Republicans.

This speech was the biggest piece of phoniness I've heard in this convention--not because Kerry didn't believe it (he did) but because the man saying it has all the political substance of Kraft cheese. I could excuse that if he wasn't so cruelly mocking about Romney. Booo.

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5TH

11:00

President Bill Clinton sells Obama. He addresses the RNC's position regarding government. He is now going to argue that business and government should work together. Interestingly, he just made the RNC's case for it. But at least he's being honest about what the RNC actually said.

And he uses his own presidency to sell the Democrats as pro-job. The guy is smart.

He argues that the far-right hates Obama. Unfortunately, the rhetoric from the far-right, which makes me cringe, is hard to live-down by more moderately-spoken conservatives. But I don't think that anyone but Clinton can argue that people at the DNC don't hate Romney.

He's being nice about the Bushes. Good for him.

Romney and Ryan are being presented as a "faction"--this goes along with the word "ideological" used last night. However, I'm not sure that pointing out how different Romney and Ryan are from the supposedly "cooperative" Obama is going to turn people against them.

He paints the Republican Convention as full of honorable people who love their families. (Is this guy planning to run again?)

He has pointed out one major flaw in Ryan's plan: how is the U.S. going to pay for it?

But he isn't saying much about Obama except we should give him a chance to finish the process he started four years ago. "We're better off than when he took office." That may be technically true, but I don't think that's most people's perception.

"Too many do not feel [the improvement]. I had the same thing happen."

So basically, Bill Clinton came on stage and sold . . . Bill Clinton.

Did Obama really save Detroit? Was it a good thing that Detroit was saved? It has been the most consistently mentioned positive item on Obama's "resume."

Clinton deals with the big issues:

Healthcare: The Republicans say it is a disaster. Clinton argues that individuals and businesses have gotten refunds through the plan; insurance companies have lowered their rates; more young people are insured; millions of seniors are receiving preventative care; insurance companies will soon have millions of new customers.

He did not address being forced to get healthcare insurance against one's will.

Medicare: Regarding Obama "robbing Medicare," Clinton claims there were no cuts to benefits. What Obama did "to save money" was take money from somewhere but nobody really wanted that money anyway.

Clinton just quoted Ryan. For a guy who is supposed to be promoting Obama, Clinton sure is giving his opposition a lot of press. I don't suppose Clinton read the memo about "I don't care what you say about me as long as you spell my name correctly."

Or he does know. Clinton is totally capable of playing both sides of the fence.

Welfare Work Requirement: Republicans claim Obama wants to weaken the welfare work requirement (that Bill Clinton put into place): Obama gave waivers to governors as long as they have a credible plan.

Why is Obama giving exceptions to state governments? Do presidents do that?

Tax cuts: Clinton Romney and Ryan are promoting tax cuts (to wealthy people). Their budget doesn't balance. Romney and Ryan want to cut programs.

He keeps talking about his first election--so I figured out where Clinton is coming from: if you still love me, you'll vote for Obama.

The speech was frankly quite good. Clinton did a better job selling a positive/long-term image of Obama than all the previous speakers. Well, he did a better job actually trying to address the Republican positions than all the previous speakers. In all honesty, I found it easier to listen to than attacks on Romney and Ryan's supposed anti-feminism. I'm not sure how factual his factoids were, but at least he actually talked about the economy!

As I guessed, Obama came out on stage to be seen with Clinton. This convention is all about pairing Obama with iconic images.

10:45 P.M.

It fascinates me that Clinton is speaking. He was, all things considered, a rather moderate president, far more moderate than the current president. And he wants to be loved. By everyone. All of America. As president, this actually made him prone to govern by poll--which isn't automatically a bad characteristic in a president.

But Obama is not beloved. Despite the speakers at the DNC. So why is Clinton tying himself to Obama?

Because he has no choice really.

10:30

Elizabeth Warren talks about hard-working people who are suffering because the "game is rigged against them." That perspective loses me immediately. Life is hard. There's no reason to turn it into a conspiracy. "Their fight is my fight, and it's Barack Obama's fight too." What does that mean?

Ah, it means the populist argument. This is such a tiresome, adolescent argument. Do these people really think that painting the world as small business owners versus arrogant bankers even begins to address the issue of debt and expensive programs? Rather than persuading me, I'm left (yet again) with the feeling that the DNC is not prepared to make hard choices or even recognize the world as it is. It's a fog of imagery: Romney wants to give tax cuts to billionaires. (I don't have a problem with that actually. Better someone gets the tax cuts than nobody.)

"Romney and Ryan would vaporize Obama Care." Well, I hope so.

"Romney said corporations are people. No, Romney, corporations are not people."

Um, reality-check, yes, they are. This ain't The Matrix. (Although wouldn't it be fun if Hugo Weaving showed up? "It's the guy from The Matrix.")

Brooks thought the 10:00 speeches would be more aimed at the undecided middle-class. I dunno. Warren's speech isn't positive or inclusive. It's a populist argument about how awful Romney is. (And equal pay for equal work.)

How effective is the populist argument? I loathe it, always have. I'd say it was a canny move since Obama can't make many positive arguments regarding his presidency. But I'm not sure that the DNC cares. Put simply, the DNC can't stand the "ideological" stance of Romney and Ryan. Which may actually end up selling Romney and Ryan.

8:30 P.M.

David Brooks is doing a good job tonight with questions! He just asked the guest in the PBS box why the DNC is focusing more on gay marriage and reproductive rights than on the economy.

He's made strong points tonight in his gentle urbane way.

8:20 P.M.

But I've finally figured out the DNC's theme: women. Seriously. I never would have guessed--mostly because I don't see myself as a member of a beleaguered minority. The repeated statement of the evening is: "Being a women is no longer a pre-existing condition." I would just put it down to this night's specific theme. But "women's issues" were discussed Tuesday as well.

The sub-text to "being a women is no longer a pre-existing condition" is "due to Big Daddy holding our hands." Which doesn't strike me as particularly feminist.

But that's not what's thrown me. What's thrown me is, Okay, apparently, the DNC believes they have located a weak spot--Romney and Ryan's conservative attitudes regarding abortion and Planned Parenthood (and their affiliation with conservative mainstream churches?). I just can't imagine this is a smart move. Can an election really be won just on "women's issues"?

8:00 P.M.

I looked up voting statistics. In 2008, slightly more women voted than men, but not by much: 51% to 48%. 18 to 24-year-olds made up 12%. 25 to 44-year-olds was 36%. 44 to 64-year-olds was 34%. Young voters may love Obama (debatable: in Maine, they love Ron Paul), but 12% just ain't that comparative much (65+ is 16%). 

Mark Shields made a point that I've been pondering all week--apparently weather has cancelled Obama appearing in the stadium tomorrow. Shields thinks the weather-folks did Obama a favor: appearing in a huge stadium at a time of economic turmoil was NOT a good idea. I've been thinking this for two weeks!

The fact that the DNC even considered it, however, goes along with my overriding point: they keep doing the same-old-same-old: bring out the women to squawk about abortion; rent a big stadium; refer to Democratic icons; sell populism. All this rather than responding to the conditions of the world around us.

7:55 P.M.

Caroline Kennedy is in the PBS box. I actually quite like her. She's got grace and poise and a friendly demeanor.

(Though when she says that last week the Republican Convention didn't show-case success stories of working-class people, my thought is, "Did you watch it?")

But she isn't shrill or lacking in a sense of humor. Kudos.

7:45 P.M.

And it's the Parade of "Democrat women from the Senate." Really, DNC, this is so old-school. Why not parade out the men? Why not parade out the senator's pets? (THAT would be WAY more interesting.)

These female speakers are really selling the equal pay for equal work theme. Setting aside whether this is even as big a topic as the speakers claim, I'm not sure this is wise. American families are worried about the economy. A husband with a well-paying job is not a liability.

This is the second evening where the main theme of the conference has been: "Women should be treated more fairly. Women should have reproductive rights" (i.e. rights to abortion). Um--men make up 50% of voters.

And not all women are Democrats. And not all women consider these issues the most important issues. It seems a tad . . . narrow. What is the DNC thinking?

7:30 P.M.

Nancy Pelosi: "When you go to the polls, vote for Medicare. Vote for President Obama. When you go to the polls, vote for Social Security. Vote for President Obama. Democrats trust the judgment of women."

You know, if she had said, "Democrats trust the judgment of Hispanics," the press would be all over the statement for its implicit racism (are Democrats implying that Hispanics are inherently untrustworthy? that a special effort needs to made--a kind of white man's burden--to trust Hispanics?). So why are these statements still being made about women? 

It's a laundry list of been-there-done-that. The Democrats haven't addressed any of the financial shenanigans that Republicans mentioned in their convention (but then, that's not really their job; the job of the convention is to sell a platform to the party).

David Brooks just lobbed a low-ball question at a Democrat congresswoman: "Why did the House lose its majority two years ago?" She boggled. Seriously. Boggled. Her answer: People wanted a faster fix. They stayed home.

Ah, the cute sadness of wishful thinking. Voters never vote wrong in Democrat-world; they just vote mistakenly: they were bamboozled, so they stayed home; they would have voted differently if they realized how hard we are working (see White Man's Burden above).

He lobbed a really interesting question: "Why did Michelle Obama not tell the success stories of both her and her husband?" Oh, come now, Brooks, you can't expect politicians to go dismantling their populist images when they're working so hard to create those images!

7:00 P.M.

Here is the weirdest thing I've encountered so far: according to the schedule, Biden won't be speaking tonight. That is so strange. Wednesday is ALWAYS VP night. Instead, Bill Clinton is winding up the evening. This does dovetail with my theory that Obama (and Biden) are being sold not on their own merits but on their group of friends (I refrained from first writing "clique"--see I'm trying to be more objective).

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4TH

I can't say that I know what the Democratic Convention is selling other than Mitt sucks. Maybe . . . diversity is good? but no concrete, stable image or vision of America. A kind of warm & fuzzy amorphous vision floated through the speeches this evening--but the vision was underscored by an immense distaste for Mitt. I'm not surprised. Just a little more disillusioned by the party in power (yes, Democrats, I mean you).

11:00 P.M.

President's Wife: Michelle Obama

I always like the First Ladies. Most of them are real ladies. We'll see how Mrs. Obama fares in her speech

The parties are battling right now over Horatio Alger stories: I had to walk uphill both ways in ten foot snow drifts to work for less than minimum wage in order to get ahead!

I can't say Michelle is helping me know Obama better. She's delivering a bunch of platitudes. I liked Ann Romney's image of five boys arguing in a house on a rainy day. There's a little of that in Michelle Obama's speech, but mostly, she's saying stuff like "he's such a good man whose life experiences have made him who he is."

Um. Okay, never mind.

Thursday, I'm teaching my business students about not using redundant language.

She is running down the party line of Obama's "achievements." I haven't noticed anything revealing or unique. She believes what she is saying. But while I may not like Obama's policies, I do believe he is a good man. I would be open to a personalize account of his struggles. This speech isn't personal. It's a list of iconic images. I wanted something like this.

The PBS guys are positive about the speech. I thought it fell short. It was passionate--Michelle Obama had conviction--and got the floor riled up. But it didn't make a rather aloof man any more real to me.

Hmmm, an election where two extremely reserved men run against each other. This is getting kind of weird.

10:30 P.M.

Keynote Speaker: The Honorable Julian Castro

Discusses his mother and grandmother--these types of speeches (the ones with personal stories) are the most effective. He is selling the image of America--hard work, independence--that speakers sold in the Republican Convention.

"But we recognize there are things we can't do alone."

True. But this statement lacks resonance. What exactly does "not alone" mean?

I think this guy is under-selling himself (and his mother and grandmother). He wants me to believe that he and his brother graduating from Ivy League Schools was some kind of fluke; everyone in Texas could have done it if there was just enough education in America.

Where did he get the drive? The funds? In his Wikipedia article, he does credit affirmative action with helping him get into Stanford and Harvard but doesn't explain why he aimed for law school in the first place and how he managed to survive there. He is ignoring that ineffable sense of self and ambition that Republicans were trying to capture in their own convention.

"[The Republicans] told a few stories of individual success--" they told A LOT of stories of individual success actually.

And . . . another attack on Romney.

What are these guys selling? No to Mitt Romney? Well, that's . . . insubstantial.

Castro just played the "keep jobs here" card. I've never agreed with this--no matter what side was advocating it. International trade is inevitable. Jobs being shipped overseas (in both directions) is what happens when communication shrinks a world. China may rule us all eventually. Get over it, people. Rome rose and fell and rose again in a new guise. That's real flexibility.

By the way, there was a nasty crack about Republicans not caring about people suffering from Hurricane Issac. The REPUBLICAN, NOT Democratic website, has a Red Cross link to give aid to the Relief Effort, and it was up even while the Republican Convention was going on.

9:45 P.M.

PBS finally got an interesting guest in the booth: the Democratic Governor of Montana. They've mostly been interviewing people who planned the convention about how great the convention is. Very boring.

The governor is a down-to-earth fellow. He actually made the "if a chief executive can't fix things in eight years, it is time to move on" argument. Um, why eight? Why not four?

Obama family members just spoke. I just realized how few family members spoke at the Republican Convention. I didn't miss them because I think it was wise not to have them. I think the DNC is working off an old-playbook.

9:30 P.M.

Lots of talk about Detroit--not sure why.

The economy is pretty much being ignored--except for the claim that we are better off than four years ago. Well, I'm not. (But I'm not going to blame Obama or Bush, either.)

9:00 P.M.

ObamaCare is defended by a mother and a little girl brought up on stage with her father and sister. The baby sister is crying. Oh, my goodness, just go kiss some babies!

8:45 P.M.

Kennan gave the pro-abortion talk.

A woman who wants an abortion shouldn't be required to get a ultrasound? Why is that bad? I'd think that getting an ultrasound would ensure the procedure going well. But maybe the idea is that ultrasounds will give pregnant women warm and fuzzy feelings about the fetus, and they won't abort. But why is it wrong for a woman to really think though her decision?

My opinion here is formed by Star Trek.

What's really interesting, though, is that in an effort to distinguish Obama from Romney, his more liberal agendas--gay marriage, abortion, the environment--are being emphasized. How will this go over with moderate Democrats who are strongly in favor of conservative moral issues?

"Women in America cannot trust Mitt Romney."

SPEAK FOR YOURSELF! DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME!

The Honorable Tammy Duckworth gave a good speech, much more similar in type to the Republican speeches--a personal story followed by an ideological stance--than the speeches so far.

Lincoln Chafee has just defined "liberal" as the government helping you do things. Christopher Hitchens must be rolling in his grave.

8:30 P.M.

Hey, this is fun! The Democrats are selling the "America is diverse" image, which is admittedly a nice image. Rep. Polis included "Mormons" in his speech. He also included Republicans. So I'm going to give him kudos as truly believing in his diversity ideology.

But how fun is it that the phrase: "Jews and Catholics, gays and straights, Muslims and Christians" now includes Mormons?!

8:15 P.M.

Kerry's convention, honesty, was far more bearable (I even said nice things about Obama in 2004!).

8:00 P.M.

Video of Ted Kennedy.

Basically, this is a night of iconic images, both verbal and visual. This is not a bad idea. Running Obama based on what he represents iconically, not what he has actually done or said, is pretty darn intelligent. 

And yet the video about Ted Kennedy went after Romney personally. The RNC's videos last week didn't do this (why advertise your opposition?). Plenty of speakers spoke about Obama's record but other than Clint Eastwood (mentioning "lawyers"--heh), few people, if any, attacked Obama's background.

By the way, that doesn't mean Obama's background is somehow "better" than Romney's in some strange moral sense. It just means the DNC is incredibly intolerant.

And frightened.

7:45 P.M.

So far the speakers are selling the image of Romney as a fat-cat indifferent to the middle-class versus Obama who "walks with us." These opposing images are pure populism: images, nothing more. But they are powerful ones.

There's also a continual use of the word "ideological" (in a negative sense--directed at Romney & Ryan).

The use of keywords/phrases is an important part of any communication strategy. The keywords/phrases with the RNC were "success" and "turn the page." ("We built it" never really did catch fire.)

So far, the DNC appears to be using "ideological" and "Obama walks with us." I question the first. It isn't really a catch-fire phrase outside of certain circles. However, within those circles, it is very powerful. The second is silly. But strong.

7:30 P.M.

Carter's Video

I actually think Carter IS still a gentleman. He is 87!

7:15 P.M.

BAD FEMINISM

I'm trying to be objective, but BAD FEMINISM happens to be one of my soap-boxes. I hate so-called tolerant liberals telling me that I should be a good lil' woman and vote the "right way."

The DNC just did something it did in 2008. I thought it was silly then. I still think it is silly: Parade the Democrat "women of the House" across the stage to talk about issues from the 1970s.

It is so demimonde/Southern belle/debutante/prom queen erk. It was weird in 2008. It's weird now and bizarrely patronizing. It's like when the DNC sends me brochures telling me to vote on "Women's Issues." So, what are those? Not the War in Iraq? Not health care issues for men (I have male friends and family members)? Not immigration? I'm a women so I'm only supposed to care about health care issues for women and supposed unequal pay (which is a WAY more complicated topic than usually discussed)?

This "parade" of sycophantic barbies is NO comparison to the tough, smart, savvy female governors and politicians who spoke--NOT paraded--at the Republican Convention. There was nothing individual about the different Democrat female speakers' claims. They spouted a bunch of political cliches plus unwarranted stereotypes about the supposed "home" of women (that is, in the Democratic Party) that I find completely offensive.

I'm breaking my own rules about labeling, but I've encountered way too many so-called tolerant liberals who want to put me in a box because I'm a woman. As Camille Paglia would say, Real women need to deal with real men in order to grow up. This means dealing with men who might have old-fashioned ideas about women but respect toughness, NOT with men who claim to be feminists but really can't stand women who think differently from them or with men who baby women into feeling good about themselves rather than expecting them to be tough.

Okay. Sorry. Back to the speakers.

7:00 P.M.

The convention hall looks like the sports stadium it is. Granted both halls have been sports stadiums, but the DNC convention hall LOOKS like one, mostly because of the huge video screens.

Mark Shields is such a loyal Democrat. David Brooks will often step back from his political point-of-view and start talking objectively. Mark Shields rarely does. It makes him cute. It also makes him kind of silly. So, he'll mention the ABC poll and then dismiss it in the same breath (Obama has dipped in the polls).

Henry Reid is selling Obama as a guy who makes the tough calls. I admit I forgot about this approach. It's actually the best approach with an unpopular president; he isn't unpopular because he's done dumb stuff, but because he makes the unpopular choices!

And . . . Reid goes on the attack: the Republicans have done nothing but stand in the way of Obama. The Tea Party has taken over the Republican Party and, boy, they are just raining on everyone's parade.

AND . . . he just played the populist card. Have I mentioned how much I despise this card? AND . . . he just went after Mitt as unknown, wealthy, non-transparent, and ideological.

So, pretty much, everything the Republicans said would happen in the Democrat Convention is happening: ATTACK THE EVIL RICH PEOPLE! It's such an awful approach. Unfortunately, it is also somewhat effective. Attack ads do work.

Pre-7:00 P.M. Remarks

So, in all honesty, I'm not looking forward to this convention (although I am curious and will try, however poorly, to be somewhat objective). Both parties have a tendency towards extreme either/or rhetoric: choose our side or the whole country gets flushed down the toilet! But liberals--not Democrats--tend to whine more. Right-wingers will call down the wrath of God; liberals will complain about how unfair everyone is being. I find it easier to listen to fire & brimstone than to listen to matches & vinegar--put-upon matches & vinegar moreover. (Exception: Right-wingers do tend to whine about political correctness.)

However, this is an entirely personal reaction and partly a product of living in blue territory (although Maine is more eggplant than blue or red). I can appreciate that another person might find the right-wing rhetoric more grating than the left-wing rhetoric (tone aside, they are quite similar).

I am looking forward to Clinton's speech--since he is more used cars salesman than whiny aristocrat. In fact, I'm hoping Hillary speaks too. The Clintons, for all their faults, are bred-to-the-bone-don't-burn-your-bridges-stupidly politicians. This makes them far more bearable than their more idealistic colleagues.

Unfortunately, the Democratic Convention has already lost (more) points with me by making it almost impossible to track down a week-long schedule of speakers by hour. They have released Tuesday's podium schedule. But not Wednesday's or Thursday's (as far as I can discover). The Republican Convention schedule was not easy to locate, but the week-long schedule of podium speakers had been released to the press by Tuesday.

Um, guys, the GOP is already saying you can't run a country. How about running your convention more efficiently?

The Honorable Henry Reid and First Lady, Michelle Obama will speak tonight.