The first person to use the word "mercenary" in regards to what is happening in Libya in an official capacity was United States' United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, a woman who looks like me. This policy of bombing is being perpetrated by a president who looks like me. And so now I take this personally because I have been blessed to be able to travel all over this planet and everywhere I go, I walk with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. [Applause], I walk with Malcolm X [Applause], I walk with all of the great people who have struggled in this country and provided a modicum of dignity in the face of oppression. I walk with them because people understand that Black people in the United States never go along with war. [Applause.] They understand that Black people in the United States sing the song of oppression every day. [Applause.] So now when I go around the world now I have to make excuses for Colin Powell, Condaleeza Rice, President Barack Obama and Susan Rice and [deafening Applause] and I am not going to do it any longer! [Loud cheering and Applause] -- I make no excuses [Cheering and Applause] a War Crime committed by George W. Bush is a War Crime committed by President Barack Obama.
-- Cynthia McKinney speaking at Atlanta's Church of the Black Madonna about the Libyan War, played last week on Black Agenda Radio.
Sunday, August 07, 2011
Truest statement of the week II
To be fair and to be really precise, we're talking about moderate liberals, we're talking about the mainstream, not the hard left. The hard left, of course, is still against the war and, you know, they've-they've stayed the course. But moderate liberals, particularly those organizing around the Democratic Party abandoned Sheehan immediately of course because they can no longer turn it against -- They -- Partisanship, in this country the partisanship is so strong and people are so attached and they're very identified with their party as well as, in this case, people are terribly identified with Barack Obama. There's a Cult of Presonality. that I couldn't really imagine about a US president, I find them rather odd and creatures on their best days. But this weird cult that coalesced around him, clearly -- one -- there's a couple of things. Obama is a very, very shrewd politician. He knows very well. His PR people did a wonderful job convincing someone that he was anti-war. In fact, all four times [in the Senate] Barack Obama could've voted against the war, he voted for the war spending, all four times. And he only made one anti-war speech. And that was a speech on Iraq in 2007*. Barack Obama was never an anti-war president, never intended to be, and was very, very explicit when he said he would fight the good war in Afghanistan. His words. And go deeper into Pakistan. I guess talking about the secret -- or not so secret war -- in Pakistan. And he has of course now killed more people with drones in Pakistan than George Bush has -- which is something I'm sure he should be proud of. And these are the people that moderate liberals have chosen to identify with. I mean, you notice that MoveOn and Daily Kos and others are absent from the anti-war movement. There were some very good numbers that happened right around the time that Barack Obama looked like he was going to be the [Democratic Party presidential] nominee and you started seeing all the money, resources draining toward the Obama campaign and CODEPINK chapters went from 200 down to about 90. And CODEPINK itself has very much stayed the course as well but people -- it wasn't the priority anymore and the excitement was around Barack Obama and somehow the gay rights movement has convinced themselves of this too. That like Barack Obama was a gay rights president and that's never been the case. The same thing with the anti-war movement, they convince themselves. It's all wishful thinking, it's a bit of projection on this shiny new model-like-actor type who is now in office. I say that because he's like very good looking and people really respond to that. They responded to that more than they'd respond to the fact that for years they've known about things like depleted uranium, for example, and all the deaths of children in Iraq. This is the direction they chose, as my colleague Scott Horton says, "Tall and handsome over justice." So the more that I think about it, now that I've just said it, damn the moderate left for what they've done because really this time more than ever we needed an antiwar movement and one that was serious and consistent and one that couldn't be picked apart by nationalists and conservatives. The nationalists and the conservatives were right. It wasn't an anti-war movement, it was an anti-Bush movement.
-- Antiwar.com's Angela Keaton, speaking with Martha Montelongo on Gadfly Radio (here for Angela's segment, here for full episode).
-- Antiwar.com's Angela Keaton, speaking with Martha Montelongo on Gadfly Radio (here for Angela's segment, here for full episode).
A note to our readers
Hey --
Another Sunday. And we're late again.
First up, we thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
We'll see you next weekend.
Cynthia McKinney on the Libyan War.
Angela Keaton on the faux left.
It's 2008 all over again as the whores refuse to speak up yet again. The blood of Iraqis is on their hand. Next week, we'll excerpt a piece by C.I. I (Jim) promised Ruth we would but forgot until right now. Next week, we'll also have a comic book feature. And Ann, Ava and C.I. hope to do a piece on The Diane Rehm Show. There's just so little time.
This was a nightmare for them in one regard: When did Betty White get her first Emmy nomination and when did she win her first Emmy and what for? They thought they knew going in. Then, as they wrote, they realized things didn't add up. They consulted the online archives and it was no help. A friend with KLAS was able to answer the question for them in the middle of the night. Even without that last minute snafu, this piece still took a lot of time to write and they worked on it like crazy. We're thrilled to be able to post it here.
Ava and C.I. don't speak in this. Why? In part because they traded off on note taking so that they could work on the drafts for their TV piece above. Also because we ran out of time. Libya and Barack's veterans proposal were the big issues in the e-mails. Next time we may do more of a grab bag. (Also Dona didn't speak by choice due to time limitations.)
A short entry. A great movie. A great actress.
Rick Perry? Really?
Jane Arraf on Iraq.
Joan Wile's writing. She retains all rights to it.
If Cynthia comes to your area, make a point to hear her speak.
Repost from Great Britian's Socialist Worker.
Repost from Workers World.
Mike and the gang wrote this and we thank them for it.
Now we're going to crash. We are exhausted.
Peace.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Another Sunday. And we're late again.
First up, we thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
We'll see you next weekend.
Cynthia McKinney on the Libyan War.
Angela Keaton on the faux left.
It's 2008 all over again as the whores refuse to speak up yet again. The blood of Iraqis is on their hand. Next week, we'll excerpt a piece by C.I. I (Jim) promised Ruth we would but forgot until right now. Next week, we'll also have a comic book feature. And Ann, Ava and C.I. hope to do a piece on The Diane Rehm Show. There's just so little time.
This was a nightmare for them in one regard: When did Betty White get her first Emmy nomination and when did she win her first Emmy and what for? They thought they knew going in. Then, as they wrote, they realized things didn't add up. They consulted the online archives and it was no help. A friend with KLAS was able to answer the question for them in the middle of the night. Even without that last minute snafu, this piece still took a lot of time to write and they worked on it like crazy. We're thrilled to be able to post it here.
Ava and C.I. don't speak in this. Why? In part because they traded off on note taking so that they could work on the drafts for their TV piece above. Also because we ran out of time. Libya and Barack's veterans proposal were the big issues in the e-mails. Next time we may do more of a grab bag. (Also Dona didn't speak by choice due to time limitations.)
A short entry. A great movie. A great actress.
Rick Perry? Really?
Jane Arraf on Iraq.
Joan Wile's writing. She retains all rights to it.
If Cynthia comes to your area, make a point to hear her speak.
Repost from Great Britian's Socialist Worker.
Repost from Workers World.
Mike and the gang wrote this and we thank them for it.
Now we're going to crash. We are exhausted.
Peace.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Editorial: The continued silence from Beggar Media
Last Tuesday came the news that the Iraqi government had agreed to enter into talks with the US about extending the US military presence in Iraq beyond 2011. What had been whispered was now public. What many had expected was no longer hidden.
And as we watched both the silence and the limited response, we found ourselves thinking back to 2008. Specifically to March 7, 2008. That's when the BBC aired their interview with Samantha Power where she confessed that Barack would not be bound to any promise on the Iraq War he made during the campaign, that he'd decide what he'd do after he got into the White House.
And, as we noted in our March 9, 2008 editorial ("Editorial: The Whores of Indymedia"), oh, how the whores of the Beggar Media stayed silent. John Nichols -- true to form -- didn't stay silent, he lied. But they lied or they stayed silent.
And it's repeating. The Nation worked hard to ignore the announced negotiations. This from the magazine that once announced -- on their cover -- that they would support no candidate who didn't call for an end to the Iraq War. Democracy Now! gave it two lines from Amy Goodman (plus a military official being quoted) in a headline. Two lines from the woman who rode the Iraq War into national fame. Tom Hayden had nothing at all to say. And while that's usually something we like from Tom-Tom, he really needed to speak up on the Iraq War.
All the usual suspects played the quiet game as the White House moved to extend the war.
Then there was Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive. As noted in Wednesday's "Iraq snapshot,"
Rothschild was able to blame the Pentagon but he couldn't blame Barack Obama. He couldn't call out Barack. But negotations are not done by the Pentagon. And a decision to extend the war would be Barack's call.
Barack broke his promise and they all pretended to ignore it. Still babying him, still hoping some day soon he'll walk on his own and go potty like a big boy.
All the liars who swore one day they'd hold Barack's feet to the fire proved that "one day" still hadn't arrived for them and never would.
He keeps breaking promises and trashing the left because so many on the left let him get away with it.
-------------
Illustration is Isaiah's "Pinocchio Obama."
And as we watched both the silence and the limited response, we found ourselves thinking back to 2008. Specifically to March 7, 2008. That's when the BBC aired their interview with Samantha Power where she confessed that Barack would not be bound to any promise on the Iraq War he made during the campaign, that he'd decide what he'd do after he got into the White House.
And, as we noted in our March 9, 2008 editorial ("Editorial: The Whores of Indymedia"), oh, how the whores of the Beggar Media stayed silent. John Nichols -- true to form -- didn't stay silent, he lied. But they lied or they stayed silent.
And it's repeating. The Nation worked hard to ignore the announced negotiations. This from the magazine that once announced -- on their cover -- that they would support no candidate who didn't call for an end to the Iraq War. Democracy Now! gave it two lines from Amy Goodman (plus a military official being quoted) in a headline. Two lines from the woman who rode the Iraq War into national fame. Tom Hayden had nothing at all to say. And while that's usually something we like from Tom-Tom, he really needed to speak up on the Iraq War.
All the usual suspects played the quiet game as the White House moved to extend the war.
Then there was Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive. As noted in Wednesday's "Iraq snapshot,"
Rothschild was able to blame the Pentagon but he couldn't blame Barack Obama. He couldn't call out Barack. But negotations are not done by the Pentagon. And a decision to extend the war would be Barack's call.
Barack broke his promise and they all pretended to ignore it. Still babying him, still hoping some day soon he'll walk on his own and go potty like a big boy.
All the liars who swore one day they'd hold Barack's feet to the fire proved that "one day" still hadn't arrived for them and never would.
He keeps breaking promises and trashing the left because so many on the left let him get away with it.
-------------
Illustration is Isaiah's "Pinocchio Obama."
TV: Laughter becomes a comedy legend most
The 100th birthday of Lucille Ball yesterday had us reflecting on women and sitcoms. When Ball's sitcom I Love Lucy debuted in the fall of 1951, there were four networks: ABC, CBS, NBC and DM (DuMont). Out of 174 programs airing, I Love Lucy was one of only nine that women led -- the other eight were Beulah (the only other sitcom and the first starring an African-American woman, Ethel Waters but in the fall of 1951 Academy Award winner Hattie McDaniels took over only to be replaced by Louise Beavers due to health reasons), Burns and Allen (starring George Burns and Gracie Allen), Mama (a dramedy starring Peggy Wood), Faye Emerson's Wonderful Town (each week, Faye visited a different city to highlight its "wonderful" features), The Carmel Myers Show (a talk show hosted by the silent film actress), Leave It To The Girls (a talk show featuring a serious look at working women that was quickly changed into let's-laugh-at-the-girls; hosted by Paula Stone in 1951), Kukla, Fran and Ollie (Fran Allison stars with puppets Kukla and Ollie in this children's show) and The Kate Smith Evening Hour (her prime time variety show, not to be confused with her daytime talk shows also known as The Kate Smith Show).
Contrast that with this fall's prime time schedule. We're counting 97 shows on five networks (ABC, CBS, CW, Fox and NBC). That does not include shows on NBS listed as "Repeats." If you can't even name what show you're airing, we're not counting it. In fall 1951, women were the leads or on 9 prime time TV shows. This fall, they'll be leads in 25 prime time TV shows: 2 Broke Girls, Mike & Molly, Hart of Dixie, Body of Proof, Unforgettable, Ringer, New Girl, Patricia Heaton's The Middle, The New Girl, Revenge, America's Next Top Model, I Hate My Teenage Daughter, Up All Night, Free Agents, Charlie's Angels, Bones, Parks and Recreation, Whitney, Nikita, Fringe, Harry's Law, The Good Wife, Pan-Am, Once Upon a Time and Desperate Housewives. While it's true that back then there were 15-minute programs airing (not anymore) and that there is actually less network prime time than there was then, we're still not seeing 25 (and we're being very generous in that count) out of 97 shows as something worth singing about.
And then we thought about the, yes, laughable Emmy Award nominations for Best Actress in a Comedy Series this year. No, we're not just rolling our eyes over Tina Fey who used the live episodes in the past season of 30 Rock to demonstrate she cannot act (cannot even handle blocking) and her performance is created in the editing room. We're also referring to the two Showtime nominees: Edie Falco and Laura Linney.
Now both women are great actresses. But they aren't nominated for comedies. In Nurse Jackie, Falco's dealing with a drug addiction and trying to avoid urine tests at work and, by the way, Showtime's original promotional material described the show as "a medical drama." Laura Linney's starring in The Big C playing a woman with cancer whose doctor's told her this season that the radiation treatments are not working and who has dreams featuring dead people chasing her, offering pithy lines like, "Slow down, sweetie, I can't run that fast I'm dead!"
Premium cable can do comedy (see Curb Your Enthusiasm) but The Big C and Nurse Jackie are not comedies. At best, they're very special episodes of Blossom. It's really not fair to allow Linney and Falco's dramatic turns to compete with comedic actresses. If you're going to do that, just have "Best Actress." But if you're going to have Best Actress in a Drama and Best Actress in a Comedy as categories, start honoring the latter by only including women in comedies.
For I Love Lucy, Lucille Ball won the Emmy for Best Actress in a Comedy twice. If she were just starting out with I Love Lucy today, chances are she'd be like Patricia Heaton (The Middle) and Courtney Cox (Cougar Town) -- a worthy nominee who instead got overlooked. And it's also unfair to the three worthy nominees: Amy Poehler (Parks and Recreation), Martha Plimpton (Raising Hope) and Melissa McCarthy (Mike & Molly). All three gave amazing comedy performances and now they have to compete with actresses who are scripted with dramatic scenes where they battle cancer and drug addiction and we're supposed to pretend it's a fair playing field?
Now it was bad enough last year when Edie Falco actually won. At the Emmys, there was a WTF buzz. Deservedly so. She should have been nominated . . . for Best Actress in a Drama.
It's interesting, as one sitcom producer noted to us Saturday while we were calling around for reactions for this piece, that the quality of acting doesn't really matter. For example, he thinks Falco's been "spotty" in the second season of her show and can't believe she got a nomination. Linney? "I haven't been so depressed after watching a 'comedy' since The Days and Nights of Molly Dodd." So why the nominations?
Because of the Water Cooler Set. 12 writers, 9 producers all swore it was because of the United States no longer has TV critics, they have a Water Cooler Set that's not interested in what's funny, just in what they hope is 'edgy.' The consensus was that the Water Cooler Set can't judge funny because they're scared to go against the pack. Boo-hoo. Poor little cowards, trying to be edgy and uptown and repeatedly glomming on broadcast network shows that don't last the season because they can't deliver the ratings. But they deliver the buzz and that's what gets the word of mouth going -- especially for those who fill out the ballots for their spouses.
When it's not about the whole industry but about actors deciding on acting (Screen Actors Guild Awards), life gets a lot harder for non-actresses trying to pass for comedic ones (no nomination for Tina Fey) and for dramatic actresses trying to pass for comedic performances (in other words, Linney got no nomination). Edie Falco got nominated.
But she lost.
To Betty White.
In a country that really appreciated what Lucille Ball accomplished -- demonstrating women could be funny and that the country would watch funny women -- Betty White would be the subject of a lot of entertainment pieces right now. But, again, we no longer have TV critics, just the Water Cooler Set. And they can tell you all about Louis CK -- except, of course, what a homophobe he is (using the term "fa**ot" repeatedly on his show was your first tip, your second was his passionate defense of Tracy Morgan's homophobic remarks).
But they can't tell you tht Betty White may have one of the biggest achievements in comedy.
In 1951, Betty White got her first Emmy nomination (national nomination). In 1952, she won a local Emmy the live -- and then local -- Life With Elizabeth (which had started as comedy sketches for KLAC's Hollywood on Television). Life With Elizabeth would go on to be a nationally syndicated sitcom. How long ago was that? Two years after Betty White was first nominated, one year after she won an Emmy, Lucille Ball would win her first Emmy (Best Comedienne).
Contrast that with this fall's prime time schedule. We're counting 97 shows on five networks (ABC, CBS, CW, Fox and NBC). That does not include shows on NBS listed as "Repeats." If you can't even name what show you're airing, we're not counting it. In fall 1951, women were the leads or on 9 prime time TV shows. This fall, they'll be leads in 25 prime time TV shows: 2 Broke Girls, Mike & Molly, Hart of Dixie, Body of Proof, Unforgettable, Ringer, New Girl, Patricia Heaton's The Middle, The New Girl, Revenge, America's Next Top Model, I Hate My Teenage Daughter, Up All Night, Free Agents, Charlie's Angels, Bones, Parks and Recreation, Whitney, Nikita, Fringe, Harry's Law, The Good Wife, Pan-Am, Once Upon a Time and Desperate Housewives. While it's true that back then there were 15-minute programs airing (not anymore) and that there is actually less network prime time than there was then, we're still not seeing 25 (and we're being very generous in that count) out of 97 shows as something worth singing about.
And then we thought about the, yes, laughable Emmy Award nominations for Best Actress in a Comedy Series this year. No, we're not just rolling our eyes over Tina Fey who used the live episodes in the past season of 30 Rock to demonstrate she cannot act (cannot even handle blocking) and her performance is created in the editing room. We're also referring to the two Showtime nominees: Edie Falco and Laura Linney.
Now both women are great actresses. But they aren't nominated for comedies. In Nurse Jackie, Falco's dealing with a drug addiction and trying to avoid urine tests at work and, by the way, Showtime's original promotional material described the show as "a medical drama." Laura Linney's starring in The Big C playing a woman with cancer whose doctor's told her this season that the radiation treatments are not working and who has dreams featuring dead people chasing her, offering pithy lines like, "Slow down, sweetie, I can't run that fast I'm dead!"
Premium cable can do comedy (see Curb Your Enthusiasm) but The Big C and Nurse Jackie are not comedies. At best, they're very special episodes of Blossom. It's really not fair to allow Linney and Falco's dramatic turns to compete with comedic actresses. If you're going to do that, just have "Best Actress." But if you're going to have Best Actress in a Drama and Best Actress in a Comedy as categories, start honoring the latter by only including women in comedies.
For I Love Lucy, Lucille Ball won the Emmy for Best Actress in a Comedy twice. If she were just starting out with I Love Lucy today, chances are she'd be like Patricia Heaton (The Middle) and Courtney Cox (Cougar Town) -- a worthy nominee who instead got overlooked. And it's also unfair to the three worthy nominees: Amy Poehler (Parks and Recreation), Martha Plimpton (Raising Hope) and Melissa McCarthy (Mike & Molly). All three gave amazing comedy performances and now they have to compete with actresses who are scripted with dramatic scenes where they battle cancer and drug addiction and we're supposed to pretend it's a fair playing field?
Now it was bad enough last year when Edie Falco actually won. At the Emmys, there was a WTF buzz. Deservedly so. She should have been nominated . . . for Best Actress in a Drama.
It's interesting, as one sitcom producer noted to us Saturday while we were calling around for reactions for this piece, that the quality of acting doesn't really matter. For example, he thinks Falco's been "spotty" in the second season of her show and can't believe she got a nomination. Linney? "I haven't been so depressed after watching a 'comedy' since The Days and Nights of Molly Dodd." So why the nominations?
Because of the Water Cooler Set. 12 writers, 9 producers all swore it was because of the United States no longer has TV critics, they have a Water Cooler Set that's not interested in what's funny, just in what they hope is 'edgy.' The consensus was that the Water Cooler Set can't judge funny because they're scared to go against the pack. Boo-hoo. Poor little cowards, trying to be edgy and uptown and repeatedly glomming on broadcast network shows that don't last the season because they can't deliver the ratings. But they deliver the buzz and that's what gets the word of mouth going -- especially for those who fill out the ballots for their spouses.
When it's not about the whole industry but about actors deciding on acting (Screen Actors Guild Awards), life gets a lot harder for non-actresses trying to pass for comedic ones (no nomination for Tina Fey) and for dramatic actresses trying to pass for comedic performances (in other words, Linney got no nomination). Edie Falco got nominated.
But she lost.
To Betty White.
In a country that really appreciated what Lucille Ball accomplished -- demonstrating women could be funny and that the country would watch funny women -- Betty White would be the subject of a lot of entertainment pieces right now. But, again, we no longer have TV critics, just the Water Cooler Set. And they can tell you all about Louis CK -- except, of course, what a homophobe he is (using the term "fa**ot" repeatedly on his show was your first tip, your second was his passionate defense of Tracy Morgan's homophobic remarks).
But they can't tell you tht Betty White may have one of the biggest achievements in comedy.
In 1951, Betty White got her first Emmy nomination (national nomination). In 1952, she won a local Emmy the live -- and then local -- Life With Elizabeth (which had started as comedy sketches for KLAC's Hollywood on Television). Life With Elizabeth would go on to be a nationally syndicated sitcom. How long ago was that? Two years after Betty White was first nominated, one year after she won an Emmy, Lucille Ball would win her first Emmy (Best Comedienne).
Fifty years after her first nomination, Betty White back in the Emmy competition, up for Best Supporting Actress in a Comedy.
Who does that?
No one that we can think of. Imogene Coca didn't, Sid Ceaser didn't, Milton Berle didn't. There's no one from that era that can pull that off but Betty White. Even her friend and colleague, Cloris Leachman -- the Meryl Streep and Katharine Hepburn of TV with 8 prime time Emmy wins and one daytime one and, this year, up for Outstanding Guest Actress in a Comedy for her role on Raising Hope -- doesn't span that many applauded years in television. (Cloris first gets nominated for an Emmy in 1972, for Best Supporting Actress -- Phyllis on The Mary Tyler Moore Show -- and she wins on her first nomination.)
And Betty White's nomination underscores the problem with TV comedy today. It's not just that Betty White had to go to cable with her show, it's also that the channel she went to doesn't get watched by the Water CoolerSet (though millions of others do watch). Hot In Cleveland airs on TV Land (and streams online at TV Land).
While the Water Cooler Set ignores it, this is the show that Betty won a SAG Award for (Best Supporting Actress) and was also nominated with her co-stars Valerie Bertinelli, Jane Leeves and Wendie Malick for Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Comedy Series.
If the country had TV critics, not only would the show be noted, but it would be noted that on this 100th year of Lucy, four women got a nod for comedy ensemble. It would be noted that Hot In Cleveland continues the ground breaking that I Love Lucy did fifty years ago.
Not only was Lucy the star, but she had a best friend, Ethel (Vivian Vance). They were a comedy team, one of TV's first female comedy teams. Many have followed including Laverne and Shirley, Christine and Barb, Cybill and Maryann, Mary and Sandra, Nell and Addy, Fran and Val and Mary and Rhoda. But Lucy and Ethel remain the template. Hot In Cleveland expands the comedy team from a duo to a quadruple.
All four actresses are allowed to shine and strut down comedy avenue.
And if you had TV critics today, they'd wonder why that was. Specifically why Valerie was so funny on One Day At A Time and is so funny on Hot In Cleveland? And if they asked that question, they could explore how Sydney destroyed her sitcom career. How and why. Because CBS was doing the same thing they did in the almost spin-off on One Day At A Time that the world's now forgotten about.
No, not the talked of spin-off of Barbara (Valerie) and her mother Ann (Bonnie Franklin) and not the filmed pilot where maintance man Schneider ends up taking care of his young relatives. There was another option. And it was folded into several episodes of One Day At A Time. It was to be Barbara and Mark (Boyd Gaines) and wacky roommates including Eight Is Enough's Susan Richardson as Eloise. But it just wasn't funny. They not only didn't make for a pilot (the two episodes), they were among the worst of the series.
The problems were the same in both Sydney and that planned spin-off: Valerie wasn't allowed to be funny. In the two One Day At A Time episodes, funny bits go to the new guys (Thom Bray and Jerry Houser) with any left overs tossed to Susan Richardson. In Sydney, there was also fear of Valerie being funny. She's not a kid anymore, CBS felt, she can't be wacky. (Valerie was 15 when she started playing Barbara Cooper.) You had a natural comedienne. Someone who could make audiences laugh. And CBS was repeatedly afraid to use that gift.
And the story of CBS' Fear Of Valerie Bertinelli really is the modern story of women in comedy. Ask any of the women who've made you laugh in the last 20 years and most of them will be able to share a story. Roseanne can tell you all about how, before she took control of her show, all the funny lines were going to other characters even though her stand up act was the basis for the show. At least she was on ABC. If she'd been on CBS, she would have gotten the axe regardless of rations (as many women went on to find out). Ask Cybill Shepherd about CBS telling her what was and wasn't appropriate for a woman to do on TV -- over and over they told her. Over and over she fought. And when she won and the audiences loved the moment CBS tried to kill, it just made the network all the angrier at her. Not only had she done something they thought wasn't 'feminine,' but the audience had loved her for doing it. Go back even further and ask Cher to tell you about CBS, about when she did a solo variety show between her two Sonny & Cher variety shows. Things that were fine and dandy -- lines and costumes -- when she was a married woman were suddenly forbidden on her solo variety show. CBS was forever worrying about lines and costumes not being 'appropriate.' Talk to those working on The New Adventures Of Old Christine and ask about how CBS was forever whining, "Does Christine have to do that?" Yeah, because it's funny, the show's a sitcom and she's the lead character.
What is so revolutionary about Hot In Cleveland is that no one has to be pretty and sweet. Not even Valerie's character. She gets in the mix, with a glued-on beard one episode, groping a female rock star another, breaking up with her son's girlfriend via text (while posing as her son), and on and on. Valerie being funny isn't an obstacle to overcome, it's the reason she's on the show. And Wendie Malick was hilarious as Nina Van Horn (Just Shoot Me!) that it was painful to watch her on Jake In Progress as the writers did nothing with her character over and over. Big Day offered her even less of a character but she flooded the role and had you believing that the show might take off (it never did). As the one-time soap opera star Victoria Chase, Malick's striking comedy gold in every episode. Jane Leeves will forever be Daphne Moon, the character she played on Fraiser, but we always thought she was allowed to show off her chops better as Blue on Throb ("That's not Carly Simon, it's Mick Jagger!"). Blue was more central to the action and so is Jane's new character Joy who has a love-hate relationship with Betty White's Elka.
And we're back to Betty White. From 1952 to 1955, she did Life With Elizabeth. White had no female co-stars. In the 70s, she found new applause and recognition as Sue Ann on The Mary Tyler Moore Show, following that in the 80s with the female ensemble of The Golden Girls. Now she's in all new female ensemble and still winning laughs and applause. To be a comedy legend, and Betty White is one, means you do things that shock, that stun and that never stop being funny. Lucille Ball understood it and that's why she remains America's beloved Lucy, all these years and years later.
Roundtable
Jim: E-mail roundtable time. Our e-mail address is thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com. Participating in this roundtable are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava, and me, Jim; Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude; Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man; C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review; Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills); Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix; Mike of Mikey Likes It!; Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz); Ruth of Ruth's Report; Trina of Trina's Kitchen; Wally of The Daily Jot; Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ; Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends; Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub. Betty's kids did the illustration.
Jim (Con't): Okay, first up, the Libyan War. Most interesting development there?
Mike: I'll go. I think it was, I'm pulling up Friday's snapshot, give me a second. Okay, on the second hour of Friday's Diane Rehm Show, James Kitfield of National Journal said, "People aren't really talking about but I believe it's in September the UN resolution that really okayed this runs out and given that NATO has gone way beyond what it originally said it was going to do which was just to protect people from massacre from the air to bombing command centers and taking out tanks, it's very hard for me to imagine that they get an extension of that [resolution] through the [United Nations] Security Council so that means that there might be a due-by-date on NATO airstrike and power for this and the further complicates it." I did not know the UN resolution ran out next month. To me, that's the biggest development.
Elaine: I'd agree with Mike but note that another important story is Reuters' report that the so-called 'rebels' were supplied with ammunition yesterday by a Qatari plane. The coverage from Al Jazeera has been one-sided and pro 'rebels.' That plane owned by the government of Qatar? Al Jazeera is also owned by the government of Qatar.
Ann: While those are both important points, I think the points we made last Sunday in "How's that Libyan War going?" were the biggest issue because, all last week, throughout the whole week, the death of Abdul Fatah Yunis continued to have an impact.
Kat: I'll jump in and note that Pope Benedict XVI today declared, "My thoughts also go to Libya, where the use of weapons has not resolved the situation. I urge international organisations and those with political and military responsibilities to search again with conviction and resolve a peace plan for the country, through negotiations and a constructive dialogue."
Jim: The Libyan War has not been a popular war with the people of America. You four that answered -- Mike, Elaine, Ann and Kat -- why do you think that is? Kat, let's start with you and go backwards.
Kat: Okay. Why are we at war with Libya? That's never been properly explained. Supposedly it was to protect civilians from a massacre and only for protection. That's not been what's taken place on the ground. NATO has bombed food warehouse and medical care facilities. So that's one reason why it's unpopular.
Ann: Going back to the roots of it, as Kat did, Barack didn't announce it clearly to the American people or to the Congress. He started the war while he wasn't even in the US and he promised it would be over in a couple of weeks. That was back in March.
Mike: Elaine's waiving for me to go. I'll drop back to James Kitfield again. He said that the US didn't take the time to get to know the people they were getting in bed with. Qatar just flew in ammo to the 'rebels,' France has given them money and weapons. They were CIA backed. As the people hear about these issues, they are less and less likely to see the Libyan War in the rosy tones Barack painted it.
Elaine: Picking up with what Mike just spoke of, a lot of that is similar to the Iraq War, CIA backed exiles -- in both wars. There's also the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War and the drone war in Pakistan. Those are ongoing wars that are sending the country spiraling into debt. For Barack to declare the Libyan War when Libya is no threat the United States and when the US cannot afford another war, that guaranteed there would be little support for his illegal war.
Jim: Libya was the big issue in the e-mails. Okay, second biggest topic. On Friday, Barack announced a new program which they predict will cost $120 million for the next two years alone. Apparently discretionary spending has not, in fact, been cut. This program will pay employers who hire veterans. Thoughts on this?
Ruth: We did not have that at the end of WWII. We made sure women were sent home and that freed jobs for the returning but we didn't have that kind of a program that I recall, I was a small child but we never studied in program in school. And that was a prosperous time. This is not a prosperous time. If you want to look at unemployment figures for the American population and so many put the number of unemployed at 30 million, the idea that 2 million are going to be given a break while 28 are not is not in the least bit fair.
Trina: Agreed. I don't have to work now, first time in my life that's the case. Pretend though that it was ten years ago. And the White House tried to do it. We had eight kids living in our home. You want to tell me that every job I go up for I will most likely lose if a veteran applies because the government will pay the company to employ a veteran? I would be furious. My attitude would be, I have eight kids. I don't give a damn about what you did or didn't do overseas. I know damn well you've got education money you can use for college, you've got basic health care being a veteran and I'm not going to waive you through the line and say cut in front of me. I've got eight kids to feed. If you beat for a job, it better because you were more qualified and not because the government bribed the company to hire you.
Stan: I agree completely with Trina and, as C.I. noted in Friday's snapshot, African-Americans have been hard hit by this economy. Barack's done nothing for us. And we're a classification that has faced historical discrimination. And right now, our employment rate is at Jim Crow levels. But Barack's going to rush in and do something for the veterans and nothing for us? He's estimating 2 million veterans will be helped by that. Do you get that?
Betty: I get it, Stan, but I don't understand it. Supposedly we have one million veterans unemployed right now. The drawdowns -- not withdrawals -- in Iraq and Afghanistanin 2011 are, the White House estimates -- going to create another million seeking jobs. That's two million people. They're going to spend -- correct me if I'm wrong, Wally -- $120 million on this program?
Wally: Betty raises a great point. And, Betty, you're right. To gain employment for 2 million veterans the government is going to spend $120 million. Those numbers don't make sense. I'm surprised Republicans aren't ripping Barack apart over this lie. 2 million times 60 gives you $120 million. So the White House's estimate means they only plan to spend sixty dollars for each veteran to be employed? The minimum the government is going to pay an employer for hiring a veteran -- pay in terms of a tax break -- is $2,400. That's the minimum on the sliding scale. With just the minimum, that's only going to cover 50,000. That's the smallest tax break, 2,4000. The numbers don't add up and if this program truly were to help 2 million veterans -- at the lowest amount possible of $2,400 -- the cost would be $4,800,000,000. I didn't realize we had four billion, nearly five, to spend on new programs.
Betty: So, yet again, Barack's getting us into a program and lying about the true cost. So why isn't he being called out on this on either side of the aisle? And then there's also the other issue that Trina and Ruth raised. And to echo Trina's point, I'm a single-mother with three children and no help from their father. If I lose my job, don't you dare tell me that I'm going into interviews with strikes against me because the government is paying employers to hire veterans. Don't you dare. I mean my attitude would be, "Barack, don't make me put my heels on and come down to the White House."
Stan: And this gets to my point. Another lay off's coming at work. Fiscal year starts October 1st. Layoffs will be announced right before it. And supposedly I'm safe for this lay off. But I already have to live in fear of losing my job --
Betty: Because Barack won't do his.
Stan: -- because Barack won't do his, yes. Now I've got to worry that if I do lose my job and have to look for a new one, I'm going to suffer because the White House isn't going to be paying any employers to hire me. The proposal just sews dissension and animosity in the republic. That alone makes it a bad policy.
Trina: And a disadvantage already exists and is only going to get worse. For example, no sooner did Barack make his speech than the Lt. Governor of Maryland, Anthony Brown, issued a statement, "In Maryland, Governor O'Malley and I are working to help veterans find employment, including creating a veterans preference in State hiring and launching the innovative Mil2FedJobs web portal to connect veterans to jobs with the Federal Government. But we must work together at every level to right this wrong." I'm sorry, I'll fight for your right to get all the benefits you were promised when you signed up but this nonsense, I don't support and I won't. The economy is too bad for anyone to be shown a preference. And you didn't defend the country because the US was not under attack from Afghanistan or Iraq so don't give me that s**t. You signed up because you believed in lies or you needed a pay check. But the reality is that we were attacked on 9-11 not by Iraq, not by Afghanistan, not even by the Taliban. We were attacked by al Qaeda -- and most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Repeating, if the government tries to slash your benefits, I'll gladly protest that. But I'm not going to support you being given any hiring preference. The whole damn country's suffering. If it's your country too, if you believe in the flag and believe in democracy, stop trying to cut in line ahead of others and grasp that we're all in the same boat together.
Jim: Marcia, Cedric, Ava and C.I. haven't spoken yet. This is a quick roundtable. I'm sure Ava and C.I. will gladly waive speaking time. And Rebecca texted me that she had to leave the roundtable to take care of something with her daughter. If she comes back before the end, we'll gladly make time for her. But we are running out of time so Marica and Cedric do you want to jump in on this.
Marcia: I agree with everything that's been said. But let me grab Trina's last remarks. We have never, in this community, placed the military above any other group in America. That was true long before I started blogging. Look at the pieces on the peace movement -- when the country had one -- repeatedly, this site stated that veterans had a place in the marches and rallies but that they weren't the only ones who did. On the left there's been a desire for some to hide behind the military and on the right there's been an attitude that I won't characterize because I'm not sure I'd be fair. And this has all led to the glorification of the US military. I don't do that. I don't support it.
Cedric: I agree with Marcia. She's completely right. I don't believe in a standing army. I don't believe that anything was accomplished by sending the US military into Iraq or Afghanistan. C.I. had a point a few months back about how she'll say, "I'm sorry you were sent over there." But she opposed to illegal war and she's not going to say, "Thank you for your service." I agree with that completely. I did not ask for these wars. These were illegal wars based on lies. I take no pride in these wars and consider them criminal activities. But we seem bound and determined to say that there are "heroes" in illegal wars. There are no such things. I'll even go further and note that the US didn't win the Iraq War and didn't win the Afghanistan War. The US military hasn't won a war since WWII. So why don't we try getting honest.
Rebecca: And until we do get honest, in the way Cedric's talking about, stop pretending that the billions and trillions spent on war will ever be spent on anything else. As long as this lie of 'success' is used to conceal what is clearly failure, do not expect anyone to speak of cutting the war funds.
Jim: Okay, Rebecca jumped in and joined us just as we were winding down. We have run out of time. This is a rush transcript.
2400 -- 00000
Jim (Con't): Okay, first up, the Libyan War. Most interesting development there?
Mike: I'll go. I think it was, I'm pulling up Friday's snapshot, give me a second. Okay, on the second hour of Friday's Diane Rehm Show, James Kitfield of National Journal said, "People aren't really talking about but I believe it's in September the UN resolution that really okayed this runs out and given that NATO has gone way beyond what it originally said it was going to do which was just to protect people from massacre from the air to bombing command centers and taking out tanks, it's very hard for me to imagine that they get an extension of that [resolution] through the [United Nations] Security Council so that means that there might be a due-by-date on NATO airstrike and power for this and the further complicates it." I did not know the UN resolution ran out next month. To me, that's the biggest development.
Elaine: I'd agree with Mike but note that another important story is Reuters' report that the so-called 'rebels' were supplied with ammunition yesterday by a Qatari plane. The coverage from Al Jazeera has been one-sided and pro 'rebels.' That plane owned by the government of Qatar? Al Jazeera is also owned by the government of Qatar.
Ann: While those are both important points, I think the points we made last Sunday in "How's that Libyan War going?" were the biggest issue because, all last week, throughout the whole week, the death of Abdul Fatah Yunis continued to have an impact.
Kat: I'll jump in and note that Pope Benedict XVI today declared, "My thoughts also go to Libya, where the use of weapons has not resolved the situation. I urge international organisations and those with political and military responsibilities to search again with conviction and resolve a peace plan for the country, through negotiations and a constructive dialogue."
Jim: The Libyan War has not been a popular war with the people of America. You four that answered -- Mike, Elaine, Ann and Kat -- why do you think that is? Kat, let's start with you and go backwards.
Kat: Okay. Why are we at war with Libya? That's never been properly explained. Supposedly it was to protect civilians from a massacre and only for protection. That's not been what's taken place on the ground. NATO has bombed food warehouse and medical care facilities. So that's one reason why it's unpopular.
Ann: Going back to the roots of it, as Kat did, Barack didn't announce it clearly to the American people or to the Congress. He started the war while he wasn't even in the US and he promised it would be over in a couple of weeks. That was back in March.
Mike: Elaine's waiving for me to go. I'll drop back to James Kitfield again. He said that the US didn't take the time to get to know the people they were getting in bed with. Qatar just flew in ammo to the 'rebels,' France has given them money and weapons. They were CIA backed. As the people hear about these issues, they are less and less likely to see the Libyan War in the rosy tones Barack painted it.
Elaine: Picking up with what Mike just spoke of, a lot of that is similar to the Iraq War, CIA backed exiles -- in both wars. There's also the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War and the drone war in Pakistan. Those are ongoing wars that are sending the country spiraling into debt. For Barack to declare the Libyan War when Libya is no threat the United States and when the US cannot afford another war, that guaranteed there would be little support for his illegal war.
Jim: Libya was the big issue in the e-mails. Okay, second biggest topic. On Friday, Barack announced a new program which they predict will cost $120 million for the next two years alone. Apparently discretionary spending has not, in fact, been cut. This program will pay employers who hire veterans. Thoughts on this?
Ruth: We did not have that at the end of WWII. We made sure women were sent home and that freed jobs for the returning but we didn't have that kind of a program that I recall, I was a small child but we never studied in program in school. And that was a prosperous time. This is not a prosperous time. If you want to look at unemployment figures for the American population and so many put the number of unemployed at 30 million, the idea that 2 million are going to be given a break while 28 are not is not in the least bit fair.
Trina: Agreed. I don't have to work now, first time in my life that's the case. Pretend though that it was ten years ago. And the White House tried to do it. We had eight kids living in our home. You want to tell me that every job I go up for I will most likely lose if a veteran applies because the government will pay the company to employ a veteran? I would be furious. My attitude would be, I have eight kids. I don't give a damn about what you did or didn't do overseas. I know damn well you've got education money you can use for college, you've got basic health care being a veteran and I'm not going to waive you through the line and say cut in front of me. I've got eight kids to feed. If you beat for a job, it better because you were more qualified and not because the government bribed the company to hire you.
Stan: I agree completely with Trina and, as C.I. noted in Friday's snapshot, African-Americans have been hard hit by this economy. Barack's done nothing for us. And we're a classification that has faced historical discrimination. And right now, our employment rate is at Jim Crow levels. But Barack's going to rush in and do something for the veterans and nothing for us? He's estimating 2 million veterans will be helped by that. Do you get that?
Betty: I get it, Stan, but I don't understand it. Supposedly we have one million veterans unemployed right now. The drawdowns -- not withdrawals -- in Iraq and Afghanistanin 2011 are, the White House estimates -- going to create another million seeking jobs. That's two million people. They're going to spend -- correct me if I'm wrong, Wally -- $120 million on this program?
Wally: Betty raises a great point. And, Betty, you're right. To gain employment for 2 million veterans the government is going to spend $120 million. Those numbers don't make sense. I'm surprised Republicans aren't ripping Barack apart over this lie. 2 million times 60 gives you $120 million. So the White House's estimate means they only plan to spend sixty dollars for each veteran to be employed? The minimum the government is going to pay an employer for hiring a veteran -- pay in terms of a tax break -- is $2,400. That's the minimum on the sliding scale. With just the minimum, that's only going to cover 50,000. That's the smallest tax break, 2,4000. The numbers don't add up and if this program truly were to help 2 million veterans -- at the lowest amount possible of $2,400 -- the cost would be $4,800,000,000. I didn't realize we had four billion, nearly five, to spend on new programs.
Betty: So, yet again, Barack's getting us into a program and lying about the true cost. So why isn't he being called out on this on either side of the aisle? And then there's also the other issue that Trina and Ruth raised. And to echo Trina's point, I'm a single-mother with three children and no help from their father. If I lose my job, don't you dare tell me that I'm going into interviews with strikes against me because the government is paying employers to hire veterans. Don't you dare. I mean my attitude would be, "Barack, don't make me put my heels on and come down to the White House."
Stan: And this gets to my point. Another lay off's coming at work. Fiscal year starts October 1st. Layoffs will be announced right before it. And supposedly I'm safe for this lay off. But I already have to live in fear of losing my job --
Betty: Because Barack won't do his.
Stan: -- because Barack won't do his, yes. Now I've got to worry that if I do lose my job and have to look for a new one, I'm going to suffer because the White House isn't going to be paying any employers to hire me. The proposal just sews dissension and animosity in the republic. That alone makes it a bad policy.
Trina: And a disadvantage already exists and is only going to get worse. For example, no sooner did Barack make his speech than the Lt. Governor of Maryland, Anthony Brown, issued a statement, "In Maryland, Governor O'Malley and I are working to help veterans find employment, including creating a veterans preference in State hiring and launching the innovative Mil2FedJobs web portal to connect veterans to jobs with the Federal Government. But we must work together at every level to right this wrong." I'm sorry, I'll fight for your right to get all the benefits you were promised when you signed up but this nonsense, I don't support and I won't. The economy is too bad for anyone to be shown a preference. And you didn't defend the country because the US was not under attack from Afghanistan or Iraq so don't give me that s**t. You signed up because you believed in lies or you needed a pay check. But the reality is that we were attacked on 9-11 not by Iraq, not by Afghanistan, not even by the Taliban. We were attacked by al Qaeda -- and most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Repeating, if the government tries to slash your benefits, I'll gladly protest that. But I'm not going to support you being given any hiring preference. The whole damn country's suffering. If it's your country too, if you believe in the flag and believe in democracy, stop trying to cut in line ahead of others and grasp that we're all in the same boat together.
Jim: Marcia, Cedric, Ava and C.I. haven't spoken yet. This is a quick roundtable. I'm sure Ava and C.I. will gladly waive speaking time. And Rebecca texted me that she had to leave the roundtable to take care of something with her daughter. If she comes back before the end, we'll gladly make time for her. But we are running out of time so Marica and Cedric do you want to jump in on this.
Marcia: I agree with everything that's been said. But let me grab Trina's last remarks. We have never, in this community, placed the military above any other group in America. That was true long before I started blogging. Look at the pieces on the peace movement -- when the country had one -- repeatedly, this site stated that veterans had a place in the marches and rallies but that they weren't the only ones who did. On the left there's been a desire for some to hide behind the military and on the right there's been an attitude that I won't characterize because I'm not sure I'd be fair. And this has all led to the glorification of the US military. I don't do that. I don't support it.
Cedric: I agree with Marcia. She's completely right. I don't believe in a standing army. I don't believe that anything was accomplished by sending the US military into Iraq or Afghanistan. C.I. had a point a few months back about how she'll say, "I'm sorry you were sent over there." But she opposed to illegal war and she's not going to say, "Thank you for your service." I agree with that completely. I did not ask for these wars. These were illegal wars based on lies. I take no pride in these wars and consider them criminal activities. But we seem bound and determined to say that there are "heroes" in illegal wars. There are no such things. I'll even go further and note that the US didn't win the Iraq War and didn't win the Afghanistan War. The US military hasn't won a war since WWII. So why don't we try getting honest.
Rebecca: And until we do get honest, in the way Cedric's talking about, stop pretending that the billions and trillions spent on war will ever be spent on anything else. As long as this lie of 'success' is used to conceal what is clearly failure, do not expect anyone to speak of cutting the war funds.
Jim: Okay, Rebecca jumped in and joined us just as we were winding down. We have run out of time. This is a rush transcript.
2400 -- 00000
Always verify
Robert Altman's 1980 film H.E.A.L.T.H. is a commentary on the nonsensical presidential campaigns and elections. If you ever doubt how good the film was, note that Ronald Reagan pronounced it the worst film he ever saw. Lauren Bacall plays a Reagen-esque figure in the film and that might have gotten Ronnie bent out of shape. Glenda Jackson plays a Jimmy Carter type. Paul Dooley plays a John Anderson type.
Carol Burnett plays Gloria Burbank, arriving at the convention to deliver a message from her employers at the White House and Gloria quickly gets swept away in the campaign of Glenda Jackson leading to the moments where the press asks her questions and she notes that, as a White House employee, she must remain "bi-partisan." Yes, she means impartial. But color Altman psychic, Jimmy Carter would drop out of a debate because independent candidate John Anderson was invited to it. Carter, too, wanted to remain "bi-partisan." (H.E.A.L.T.H. was filmed in 1979.)
She attempts to explain what she likes about Glenda Jackson's campaign but Burbank quickly moves on to challenging Bacall and her credentials, "How do we know she's 83-years-old? For all we know, she could be 33 and have lived hard. We don't know. Right? They tell us that her records were burned in the San Francisco fire. Well, let's go find that fire and let's put it out."
Again, color Altman a psychic.
The Cry Baby Contender?
Supposedly Texas Governor Rick Perry is close to throwing his hat in the ring and running for the GOP presidential nomination. We can't imagine why?
For example, in 2008, Hillary Clinton was savaged for her eyes welling up. She didn't cry in New Hampshire. She was speaking about issues and how important they were and her eyes welled up. Didn't spill over, no tear ran down her face.
But she was mocked and trashed by Bill Moyers, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Jesse Jackson Jr., Chris Matthews and so, so many more.
And Governor Perry thinks he can run for the GOP nomination in 2012?
Though many are unaware, back when Bully Boy Bush occupied the White House, Perry called a press conference in Austin. The networks and major dailies sent people in for this conference. The belief was that Rick Perry was going to address the rumors swirling around that he was gay. Texas media carried the press conference live. There are hundreds and hundreds of copies of it.
Perry didn't declare himself gay (and may not be) but he visibly weeped while he repeatedly spoke about "the rumors" without ever explaining what the rumors said. He visibly weeped as he insisted that "the rumors" needed to stop and that they were hurting his family.
Does he really think that footage isn't about to come out the second he declares?
Regardless of anything else, the footage proves that he's a big cry baby. He really thinks that won't bite him in the ass?
For example, in 2008, Hillary Clinton was savaged for her eyes welling up. She didn't cry in New Hampshire. She was speaking about issues and how important they were and her eyes welled up. Didn't spill over, no tear ran down her face.
But she was mocked and trashed by Bill Moyers, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Jesse Jackson Jr., Chris Matthews and so, so many more.
And Governor Perry thinks he can run for the GOP nomination in 2012?
Though many are unaware, back when Bully Boy Bush occupied the White House, Perry called a press conference in Austin. The networks and major dailies sent people in for this conference. The belief was that Rick Perry was going to address the rumors swirling around that he was gay. Texas media carried the press conference live. There are hundreds and hundreds of copies of it.
Perry didn't declare himself gay (and may not be) but he visibly weeped while he repeatedly spoke about "the rumors" without ever explaining what the rumors said. He visibly weeped as he insisted that "the rumors" needed to stop and that they were hurting his family.
Does he really think that footage isn't about to come out the second he declares?
Regardless of anything else, the footage proves that he's a big cry baby. He really thinks that won't bite him in the ass?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
