Ava: Jim, C.I. and I are excusing ourselves from this topic due to the fact that we'll say what we want to say in out TV commentary.
Jim: Okay. So let's get down the basics. By 41%, Hillary Clinton won West Virginia. The media crowned 'nominee' Barack Obama did not win and, in part, the media's response can be seen as pouting. Wally and Marcia were in West Virginia, trying to get the vote out for Hillary so let me start with them.
Marcia: Wally's pointing to me. First off, "trying to get the vote out" is correct because none of us are affiliated with the Hillary campaign or part of it. Wally and I had been doing the same in Indiana. We were supposed to then go to Oregon but after the media pouted over Hillary's victory in Indiana -- aided by the Mayor of Gary who played dirty tricks to prevent Hillary's win from being called in time to make headlines in the next day's paper -- we headed to West Virginia. It is rural, it is working class and the 41% is a clear indication that Barack can't connect with working class voters. All this time later. He's an alien to the non-Black working class. And, let me do my stats: African-American and lesbian before anyone gets bent out of shape. Can't have the nitwits at FAIR bent out of shape, can we? But that's what we saw, Wally and I, over and over. There's been efforts to call those people "racists" and that's bulls**t. I was there. I was campaigning. I experienced no racism only kindness. And, as Betty's pointed out, the most racist state she's visited was Vermont. But it makes uppity easterners feel good to say "oh, they're racist in the south" with the implication that they aren't racist in the north when, in fact, it's becoming a yearly event for NYC cops to shoot down some African-American for some invented crime. But keep kidding yourself that NYC is enlightenment.
Wally: Marcia's pointing to me to jump in. We didn't hear concerns over Barack's race. We heard concerns over the economy. We heard concerns about how he's insulted them. They don't trust Barack to fix the economy. He's offered no plans -- a point repeatedly raised -- and his sloganeering that keeps the Bobby-sox crowd drooling didn't play with people working to stay afloat. I would agree with everything Marcia said. When we got to West Virginia, we were a little nervous because neither of us knew anything about it. All we had was phone numbers of people C.I. knew and C.I. had -- immediately -- put together the first day's events with phone calls. I mean, we told C.I. we were going to West Virginia and not Oregon and C.I. said "We'll talk after you land there." As soon as we landed, Marcia's cell's ringing and we had a full day's events. As we drove to and from them, we were working C.I.'s contact list and lining up even more for the rest of the time. Marcia's written many times at her site how nice everyone was and I just want to echo that. I'll also add that they were aware they'd be stereotyped by the media as 'dumb' which is what really happened, that is how the media played that out.
Betty: And the reason is because the media is saying, "If you don't do what we say will happen, you are dumb!" It's so insulting. As a Black woman living in the south, Georgia, I find more racism when I visit the north including, as Marcia noted, Vermont which shocked me because I thought it was the progressive state. But Hillary won and the media wasn't interested. They had other things to do like pretend the primary didn't matter. She won by 41% and no one can spin that as 'good news' for Barack. Barack's a loser and the Democratic Party needs to wake up to the fact really quick. Crackpot Donna Brazile can argue that the Democratic Party doesn't need working class Whites and Latinos but that loser is proof that the "Peter Principle" is alive and well in the Democratic Party. The more you fail, the more you get promoted.
Cedric: I was really astounded that so telling and so major of a victory would be so dismissed by the Democratic Party. I could see the media stamping their feet because they love them so Barack. But the Democratic Party's interest is supposed to be in winning elections. Nothing that happened last week convinced me of that.
Jim: Ruth, I'm assuming since Kat hasn't jumped in that she knows what Ava and C.I. plan to write about and assuming that's true of Elaine as well, so I'm tossing to you. But first, here's the lineup for those participating. Dona, Ty, Jess and I are all in South Dakota. Rebecca's in Oregon. Mike, Marcia, Wally, Cedric, Betty and Ruth are in Kentucky and Ava, C.I., Kat and Elaine are in Puerto Rico. So Ruth, any thoughts on the West Virginia results or on what you're seeing in Kentucky?
Ruth: I wrote at my site -- and I really hate to make predictions -- that Kentucky feels like Hillary's state. I was not in West Virginia but the things Wally and Marcia were talking about, those are the issues we are seeing in West Virginia. In terms of the dismissal of Hillary's victory, I think we will see that again Tuesday when she most likely wins Kentucky. I share Cedric's concerns about the DNC and why they're not seeing this.
Ava: They are seeing this. I have to leave it at that because we're dealing it with it in the TV feature but I can't let that stand. It's the media narrative, I know, but it's false. C.I., Elaine and I are on the phone with super delegates all the time. Elaine might want to grab this?
Elaine: Sure. Hillary's victory -- downplayed by the media, no question -- did resonate. They are following Kentucky right now and her results in that state will matter significantly. The ones I've spoken with -- and let me note that we're all only lobbying super delegates we know -- stress the fact that Oregon's not an issue. If it goes to Barack or Hillary, it's not considered an issue. It's assumed it will go Democratic in November regardless. But they are paying attention to Kentucky and they are realizing that there is a problem with Barack's support eroding. West Virginia was dismissed by the media and by some people the Obama campaign steered the media to; however, super delegates are not dismissing it. I should note that I'm personally lobbying two who came out for Barack and both say that if it makes to the convention, they won't be supporting Barack.
C.I.: Super delegates are not pledged. They can vote however they want. Barack has lost some of the support the media runs with but they, super delegates, don't want to look like they're influencing the primary so they're not announcing that. Along with ones who are no longer supporting him, there are ones who have weakened on him. Were they not trying to stay out of the process, the primaries, they would most likely state that they are now undecided. Super delegates are not pledged and they only matter at the convention though Barack's attempting to use 'new math' to claim they matter during the primary. They do not.
Jim: Okay. Though not covered by the media too heavily, Barack had his "sweetie" moment, something we commented on some time ago. In this instance, Barack dismissed a question from a reporter who was a female by calling her "sweetie" and refusing to answer her.
Mike: I got to jump in and say what Rebecca said a month ago: "Sweetie? Who the hell does he think he is? Goldie Hawn!"
Rebecca: Really. Seriously. What kind of a grown man -- for the Democratic Party -- thinks it's okay to call women "sweetie" -- and he has done that repeatedly now! He's such a sexist fop. Male model. It's offensive and as offensive as when that man --
C.I.: Clayton Williams.
Rebecca: Thank you, when Williams was running against Ann Richards and said with rape a woman should just lie back and enjoy it. It's the same sort of crap. It's the same insulting crap and he's a pig. Of course FAIR didn't issue an alert on that. They always give him a pass. If a Republican said it, the media would be all over him. But no one must call out the Christ-child.
Ruth: It is just so surprising to hear that from a Democratic nominee. And so telling.
Jim: Barack got two endorsements this week. In spite of those remarks. Endorsing him were John Edwards and NARAL.
Kat: No one takes NARAL seriously. It's spent the better part of the decade ensuring that no one would take it seriously. From that Jane woman --
C.I.: Jane Hamsher.
Kat: Thanks. She was calling them out in 2006. This community walked away from the in January 2005. It's only the we-don't-follow-women media that believes NARAL's in any way in touch with women today. NARAL's a joke.
C.I.: I think Kat means in April 2007. And sorry to make Dallas look for a link but the title's something like "Don't Reward Failure".
Kat: That sounds like what I'm thinking of. And, by the way, Dallas with Rebecca in Oregon. I doubt he'll jump in but just to note that there is another person participating that didn't get mentioned.
Jim: Kat is correct, my apologies to Dallas. If Dallas wants to speak, he's welcome to but I doubt he will so, if he won't, Rebecca could you explain the process. Ty had three e-mails asking about that.
Rebecca: Well, Ava and C.I. take notes for all transcript pieces. That gets typed up. Dallas finds links to things that people are talking about. He pastes them into an e-mail identifying what they are and then, when the rush transcript is typed up, the ones considered necessary get inserted in. So he's on his laptop doing searches while we're talking. And he's nodding his agreement with that.
Jim: Dallas participates every week and we would gladly include as part of Third's core team, but he's much too modest. He spoke recently in a roundtable and that resulted in questions from newer members. Only C.I. and Wally can ask Dallas to speak and get him to. In non-transcript pieces he participates at length. Ty, you wanted to respond to an e-mail.
Ty: A Barack Loving Fool who runs a blog e-mailed whining that we do not allow comments. Boo-hoo. We're not a blog. We're an online magazine. We publish on Sundays. We started in January 2005. We have never allowed comments. That is due to the fact that comments were closed the month prior at The Common Ills when racists started leaving comments. This topic has been covered and covered again. I'm African-American and Betty, who is as well, and I have shared from the earliest months that blogs with commenting are not friendly to African-Americans unless they are geared solely to African-Americans. If you're not aware of that, you live in a White world -- with Bambi posters.
Dona: I want to deal with the blog aspect. Each week, we offer editorials, feature articles and a blend of other things. That anyone reading would not grasp this wasn't a blog -- I know haters at The Nation can't stop e-mailing about "your blog" -- goes to their own lack of intelligence. We don't do "cat blogging Fridays!" or any of that other nonsense. On NARAL, they are pathetic and anyone who thinks otherwise can visit our very first edition in which we were very clear where we stand abortion -- firmly in support of it -- and what we think of the people who sell out abortion rights.
Ty: Also, we intend to note a press release on the film Meeting Resistance, that we were e-mailed. However, this is the first piece we're working on and time always runs out. In case we don't, the documentary comes out on DVD Tuesday. It's an important film and one we all loved. During the writers' strike, C.I. added links, on the right side of the page, to Medium because Ava and C.I. were dying to review it and couldn't due to the strike and to Meeting Resistance. We strongly encourage you to see that film.
Jim: Okay. You had another e-mail you wanted to address.
Ty: Another male blogger wrote to whine that all we ever link to are female bloggers. I wasn't aware that was the case. Ava and C.I. do their own links for their TV pieces. Otherwise, we're using Dallas.
C.I.: Dallas, you hate men?
Rebecca: Dallas is laughing. I think he's going to speak.
Dallas: I wasn't aware The New York Times and other outlets were women. When a subject is referenced here, chances are it's been noted at The Common Ills already. If it's a blog, it's more likely to be a blog by a woman just because C.I. works in those links more often. I would love to see some hard numbers from whomever's complaining on this. In terms of sexism the Blogging Barkers aren't interested in the topic. And are usually contributing to the sexism. I'd have to see some hard numbers. I can tell you that I've already put two blog links into the e-mail. All are women. One is the Firedoglake post Kat was talking about, another is Tennessee Guerilla Women because there's a desire on the part of many participating to link to them. I'm also trying to find some stuff for Susan at Random Thoughts because C.I. asked me in an e-mail to try to find things by Susan to link to when possible this edition.
C.I.: And I did that because Susan's a strong writer. But it's so hard to link to or quote her at The Common Ills due to the language issue. We're work safe at The Common Ills. But it's also true that along with keeping a running tally of links, Dallas is also on the phone when these pieces are being typed up and there are times when a link will be seen and someone will say, "I don't want to link to that." So we'll try to find something else and we're tossing out suggestions. Dallas isn't to blame and I doubt seriously any blogs have been linked to as much as mainstream media. I think it's a false charge.
Rebecca: Like, and I've told this story before, in the eighties, this idiot male whining to C.I., "All your cassettes are women." C.I. counte dthe over 3,000 right then and not only were all not female, there were three more males than women. It has to do with what you think of women. For some, if more than one woman is present, it's too much! Too scary! Oh, no, too many women! I think that's the case with the male blogger e-mailing to whine.
Dona: I think that example is perfect. And it needs to be noted that we have all asked Dallas, at one point or another to try to highlight some source and that Jess is the converse, he usually will let Dallas know, "Don't bother tracking down something by ___ because I'm sick of them." But Rebecca's right and one feature we hope to do this weekend is "If Women Mattered." I would say right now that if women mattered some guy wouldn't be asserting that we link to X number of women bloggers. Like Dallas, I would need to see the hard data on that to believe it and, again, Ava and C.I. do their own links in any piece that they write. So, setting their writing aside, I just don't believe that's happening.
Jess: Let me jump in and point out that a number of e-mails are saying "Whine, whine, whine, you talk about sexism. Whine, whine, whine. You're just doing that to promote your candidate. Whine, whine whine." You're not a regular reader if you're writing that lie. Ava and C.I.'s pieces have always called out sexism, go back to winter 2005. We have called out sexism from the start in our group writing. We were calling out the idiotic FAIR for its sexism in October of 2006. That issue, that very real issue, has always been addressed here. And if I could back up Rebecca's point that she's made at her site and here since 2005 -- it is a failure of feminist outlets that they have refused to call out the sexism in Panhandle Media. They've been happy to ignore the fact that supposed 'friends' in independent media do the exact same thing the mainstream media does, render women invisible. In terms of FAIR, we called them out following their study of the gender numbers for PBS' NewsHour which, not surprisingly, were the exact same proportion to the number of women FAIR's CounterSpin featured as guests in the same period. Look at the allegedly feminist blogs and how much sexism they let The Daily Toilet Scrubber get away with, from his insults of "women's studies majors" on down the line. Ava and C.I. led the charting of The Nation's publishing in 2007 here. What did we end up with? 491 men published, 149 women. Entire issues could be published without a single woman getting a byline. Where was the calling out on that? Both The Nation and FAIR have been silent on the sexism used in this campaign -- while issuing non-stop alerts on the racism -- they have insulted Robin Morgan and Gloria Steinem. Well guess what? Some of the 'leaders' need to own that because they created an environment that said "I'll give them a pass, they're on the left." We never did that. I look at things like Ava and C.I.'s "Katie Was A Cheerleader" or "About the women" now and it's obvious that they were ahead of the curve, they were brave and fearless. Where were the people calling out the sexist dismissals of Katie Couric before she ever even did a broadcast on the CBS Evening News? You saw it here. You didn't see it elsewhere. What The Nation offered was a gay male writing about Desperate Housewives and praising it -- even with it's conservative views and being created by an adament Republican. But I guess it was a gay bond thing since the writer of the crap-ass piece and the crap-ass show were gay. Why two gay men were seen as 'commenting' on women, I have no idea but it goes to The Nation's very low regard for women. So go try to make nice, you Obama supporters, with idiots but we're not in the mood for your crap.
Jim: On "Katie Was a Cheerleader," just let me note, it is now the article we have received the most e-mails on. Though I had no part in that, I didn't even write the headline on that one, I am very proud to be part of the site that published it. It stands as one of the best things written here and it continues to speak to readers. And Jess is right that Ava and C.I. especially have led the way. I can hear groans and I know that's Ava and C.I.
Rebecca: Let 'em groan, we all know they've worked their asses off, we all know they've gone where others feared to go. We all know they created a body of work that stands up to this day. Find others who can look back on the last three years and say that? You won't find many. In terms of FAIR, for those reading who may be wondering why they keep being mentioned, we're trying to talk Ava and C.I. into either including FAIR in the TV commentary or in doing a piece just on the trash that FAIR's becoming. They're becoming nothing but a propaganda outlet.
C.I.: You have no idea how right you are on that; however, it's equally true that this is supposed to be 'light' workload edition and we're all tired. We're not going to decide in this roundtable whether we're including FAIR or not. I do have a call into a friend at WBAI to confirm something I was told. If that's confirmed, we'll be more likely to cover it but that's not something we're going to decide now. Ava?
Ava: Our plan was to grab one show and only one show. We were in Oregon all week, addressing the illegal war and also getting out the vote for Hillary. Now we're in Puerto Rico. We will have 'no weekend.' We will have no day off. Pushing it will only make us refuse to cover it. We're tired and we're cranky. As soon as we're done in Puerto Rico, we fly back to Oregon. Don't poke the bear. Someone else needs to take notes!
[. . .]
Jim: Okay, Ty's going to try and everyone speak slowly. I'm assuming we just lost both Ava and C.I.?
Kat: Correct. C.I. got a call back from the friend at WBAI and they're now off writing their feature article. From what I heard of the call, CounterSpin and FAIR will be addressed in their commentary.
Jim: We have a question on movie stars versus actors to get to and some other things. Anyone have an interesting story, take or opinion before we get to that?
Elaine: Kat's nudging me. I'll tell this and then try to stay silent the rest of the time. If you read my site, you know that I mentioned a book recently that I hadn't read. I should have noted that Stephen Holden gave it a good review. I should have linked to that as well. I didn't see that in time to. But I noted I hadn't read it but planned to and I noted that C.I. was leery of it and not promoting it because of warnings that it contained some hatchet jobs. I did read it and what I thought of it should be obvious by the fact that (a) I never blogged about it and (b) I'm not mentioning the title here. I took it on the plane and Kat was sort of looking through it, not very interested. C.I. was reading over some position papers and, when done with them, noticed the book.
Kat: And asked, "How bad is it?" Elaine just grimaced. C.I. reached for the book then, like it was nuclear, pulled the hand back. But we were all -- Ava, Trina, Elaine and I -- saying, "Read a bit of it. What's your take?"
Elaine: So C.I. opened it to the last third of the book and it was not pretty. "Lie." "F**king lie!" Those were the comments. Oh, Kat and I have just been busted.
C.I.: I came back for more paper. That book is an embarrassment. 17 factual errors in the two pages I read including that an artist didn't have a record label when working on an album. Who released that album? The label the artist had been with since 1986. After that album was released, the artist and the label would part. It was the biggest piece of crap, it was everything I had been warned it was. That writer is an idiot who doesn't know the works she's writing about, even who wrote songs. She has no musical taste or knowledge and has written a cautionary book like those 'anonymous' trade paperbacks of the seventies about young women who run away from home. What a prig, what an idiot. I've got the paper and I'm leaving but that book is hideous.
Elaine: C.I.'s gone. But yeah, the book is really bad. And the comment just now about "no musical taste," dead on correct. How can you write a book about musicians and have no knowledge or even excitement about the music? It was all who screwed who and when. It really was embarrassing. I felt dirty just reading it.
Kat: And it was a cautionary tale. When C.I. was comparing it to those paperbacks of the seventies, I was laughing just now because that is true. For those who don't know, there was this rash of poorly written books supposedly by female runaways, supposedly true stories. You'd find them in super markets. And they were always about how they ended up pregnant, had an abortion, tried suicide, "Oh why didn't I know my parents loved me!" And that's what the book is. Three dynamic women made lives for themselves and it was all a cautionary tale. In one case, the woman is being slammed for life and you can't help but think, what about the man? Oh, Chrissie Hynde sings that in "Chill Factor"! But the man in question is a name, also a recording artist and he's apparently happy and fulfilled but the women, nope. It was a cautionary tale against feminism and women pursuing their artistic desires. It really was insulting and so full of factual errors you'd think the woman who wrote it was Gerri Hershey. But Elaine, Trina, Ava and I were laughing when C.I. was almost picking up. It was like "This is radioactive." When C.I. finally picked it up, like Elaine said, the criticism were instant. And after C.I. put it down, C.I. grabbed it again, flipped to an earlier section and said, "The idiot doesn't even know ___ wrote the music. She's saying ____ wrote these autobiographical lyrics and ___ -- a man -- wrote the lyrics. What a f**king idiot!" At that point, the book was hurled across the cabin.
Elaine: We charted a flight, lest anyone worry that C.I. might have injured another passenger.
Jim: I can see that. I can picture it. There has been a lot of talk about that book for about six months now, people stopping by C.I.'s house and thinking it was going to be real disgrace.We made the mistake here, once, of doing a last minute feature on a book. We thought it would be quick. It was on Laura Nyro, who C.I. knew, and C.I. said, "I haven't read the book." Which, now, we would know meant, "I've been told that book is trash." But we were talking about the book -- mainly Dona and Ty -- and writing the article and you could just see C.I. tense up. C.I. would nicely ask, "What did the book say?" And after about thirty minutes, you could tell C.I. was furious. That's when it was leave the room, come back with the journals and start flipping. "Okay, here's a letter from Laura about how awful it was recording that album. That women -- the writer of the book -- doesn't know what the hell she's talking about!" And it was like that, C.I. had about sixty journals out and was flipping through them to find various journal entries on phone conversations and to find letters -- C.I. staples letters into the journals -- to show us just how bad that book was. I could go into more detail but I know that woman's on C.I.'s list and if she does one more idiotic thing, C.I.'s going to out the way that bad book was written, I'm referring to 'research.' So I'll leave it at that.
Dona: I felt so bad. I didn't realize C.I. knew Laura. I didn't realize the book was bad. Ty and I had enjoyed it, not knowing anything about Laura Nyro. In retrospect, it should have stood out that in terms of any 'discussions' or 'analysis' on music, it was all copy and paste reviews because the writer apparently could not think for herself. But, yeah, what we thought would be a quick, easy feature, ended up being three hours. Like Jim said, when C.I. nicely said, "I haven't read the book," we should have all realized, "Then there's a reason for that." But having seen that, I can visualize the reaction to that piece of garbage. I haven't read it but I've heard friends of C.I. call it garbage since the galleys were available.
Kat: I wish I could talk about the book, I really do, because C.I., in those two looks, just at two pages and then flipping to earlier, really underscored how the woman who wrote it didn't know what she was talking about, missed key events and mainly just copied and pasted Rolling Stone articles and reviews together and called that a "book." I will note that C.I. pointed out, "The idiot took a 1981 Rolling Stone item from Random Notes and put it into the 70s. That never happened then!"
Elaine: Once upon a time, publishing companies had fact checkers. Those days appear to be long gone. It's a really bad book.
Ruth: I am glad to know that because I was thinking of buying it. I know which book, and I am sure most people do, you are talking about. It is a real shame because women, and I think you made that point Elaine in your post, are rarely the topic of books. So when one comes along, it is sad that it is nothing but bad gossip.
Elaine: It treats artists like groupies and sad groupies at that. There's more joy in a book by Pamela Des Barres. And I'm not trying to insult Miss Pamela. I'm just noting that you had artists in charge of their own work and their own lives and the writer tries to tell you that women who do that are doomed to pathetic lives. Even the revisionary Janis tales following Joplin's death didn't go that far.
Jim: Okay well this is the perfect to transition to movies. Braunwyn writes that she will forgive me for never noting her praise of Ava and C.I.'s reviews in a roundtable if I would put this question into one. She wants to know who we would rate as the stars of films after the collapse of the studio system which she pegs as being complete by 1960. So who are the real movie stars, and not just actors written about, after 1960?
Mike: Are we suppoed to go up to current day?
Jim: No, from her e-mail, I think we can stop with the seventies. She's concerned with 1960 to 1979.
Rebecca: Barbra Streisand. Barbra is a very real movie star. She's an actress as well. But Braunwyn has written me with that question before and her pick is Natalie Wood, by the way. But she wonders how many who are just good or even okay actors are mistaken for stars. She thinks there have been very few real movie stars to emerge. I agree with her, for the record. And in my e-mail I made the case for Barbra, whom I love.
Betty: I'd agree with Rebecca on Barbra. I'll stay with actresses but note that Richard Pryor was a movie star. But my pick? Hmm. That's a hard one. Am I talking too fast, Ty?
Ty: No.
Betty: Okay, I'll go with Goldie Hawn.
Ruth: I was going to say that as well.
Jess: Yeah, Goldie's a real star.
Betty: She's always got a presence. And she comes along and creates a characterization that's not like any who come before. There are elements of Judy Holiday and Marilyn Monroe, but just elements. She's uniquely Goldie Hawn and, even now, there's still no one like her.
Wally: I'll jump in on Goldie because I started going around with C.I., speaking out against the illegal war, a few years back, and one time I was worried I wasn't serious enough. And C.I. said, no, you have to stay loose. And told a story about Goldie and how a lot of times on sets, people think she's not working before filming. Goldie's making jokes and all and part of that is to keep the energy high but she's also trying out things and when the camera rolls, everyone sees that all the things they thought were distractions were actually bits Goldie was playing around with for the scene. Like community member Goldie -- who is, in fact, named after Goldie Hawn -- my mother has the Goldie DVD collection and the videotape collection before that. I grew up knowing all of her movies. And she's very funny. But when C.I. was telling me that, it really just made me think, "Okay, I don't have to do it like this or like that, you can find your way." And, if I'm at all successful speaking, that's why.
Betty: Wally, you're a great speaker. And I can see how you do use that method naturally so I can see how the story would validate the process for you. I think it really was Goldie and Barbra. I think there have been other actresses, but Goldie and Barbra are the only real movie stars. Natalie Wood was one but she was a child star and part of the studio process. Like Elizabeth Taylor, to name another real star.
Jim: So among actresses, we're saying Goldie Hawn and Barbra Streisand with Natalie Wood thrown in if we fudge the dates. What about actors?
Cedric: Let me grab Betty's point. Richard Pryor. A true movie star. A successful comedian who crossed over into films and really did in a way that was unique. I'd also throw Lily Tomlin, who I think is very similar to Richard, in the mix but I know she wasn't making a lot of films during that period. But Richard created his own persona on screen. Like Goldie, it has elements of people who came before, specifically African-American men, but he also added his own qualities and he's just a huge breakthrough. I would not consider Paul Newman a movie star. He's an actor who gets a lot of press, if you ask me. He's not really a movie star.
Jim: Really?
Rebecca: I would agree with Cedric and note, on Newman, he had a lot of flops. And if you take Redford, Robert Redford, out of the equation, the films he did with Newman, Newman had very few blockbusters. He was a "thinking man" who was good looking. He wasn't a star. Steve McQueen was a star.
Mike: You grabbed my pick!
Rebecca: Sorry. But Steve McQueen, the audience had a love affair with him. That's never really been the case with Newman. I think some people are too intellectual to become stars, that their over-thinking creates a barrier between them and the audience and I would include him on that list.
Mike: I was going to say McQueen because of movies like Bullet and Thomas Crowne Affair specifically but there are a lot more. We did not go out to the movies in my family, we rented or bought movies. I've got seven brothers and sisters. So taking us all out to the movies would be a huge chunk of change. My parents like older movies and those were usually the ones left when you went in at the last minute, like we usually did. I was always excited if it was a McQueen movie. There's another man I would pick but I don't want to take someone's pick.
Marcia: I'm guessing you mean Warren Beatty and that's who sprung to mind for me. My all time favorite film is Shampoo. But I enjoy all of his films, even Promise Her Anything.
Betty: That is a really bad movie and I love it too. I love all of the sixties sex-romps.
Marcia: Really?
Ruth: Yes. Betty's talked about movies here that I had forgotten: If It's Tuesday, This Must Be Belgium. What's So Bad About Feeling So Good?
Marica: I love those movies. Especially What's So Bad About Feeling So Good? Stuff like that used to be on the UHF channels -- pre-cable -- all the time. I saw all those films over and over and now they never appear anywhere and they're not available on DVD.
Dona: They're bad in some ways, but they have a better look then some of the things coming out these days which look like they were shot with no one paying attention. I'm trying to think of someone that wasn't named and someone who came about after 1960. Shirley MacLaine's first film was 1955, so she's before the period we're covering. The only one I can think of is Julie Christie who probably doesn't want to be known as a movie star but is one. She's a wonderful actress -- all the people listed are wonderful actors and actresses -- but in terms of having that extra something that makes you a star, draws the eyes to you automatically, Julie Christie is one. I'm sure I'll think of someone after we're done and wonder why I didn't say him or her.
Ruth: I can think of one more right now: Cher.
Rebecca: Yeah, Cher would be a movie star. Not just an actress -- and she's a wonderful actress -- but also a star. She's in Vegas right now, by the way. We're hoping to see her, Flyboy and I, in concert when the primary season is over.
Cedric: Jim didn't name anyone. Ty didn't either but he's taking notes.
[Added to stop e-mails since this published: Ava, C.I. and Jim pick: Jack Nicholson, John Travolta, Diane Keaton and Al Pacino. 5-19-08]
Jim: I really didn't have anyone. I think all the choices are strong ones. I'd probably go with Warren Beatty of the males and Goldie for the females. And we love Shampoo. We -- Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava, C.I. and myself -- have probably watched that film more than any other film except Cactus Flower which is another favorite. Okay, now on to the topic of Nader and an e-mail that Ty printed up that I'll mention since he's taking notes. The e-mailer, Buddy Walker, wants to know how anyone can consider voting for Nader and feels we're jumping on a bandwagon.
Jess: Well I didn't know there was a Ralph Nader bandwagon. That's good news and I'm glad to hear it. What I see are a lot of sites, Democratic sites, saying, "I may vote for McCain if Barack's the nominee." That's not going to scare anyone. Nader's the threat that will wake up the DNC. They already wrongly blame him for the 2000 election.
Betty: I hadn't thought of that. But, in terms of strategy, Jess is right. Nader's the one that will frighten them. That said, I haven't made a threat to vote for Nader if Hillary's not the nominee, I've made a promise to. Selecting Barack is rewarding the non-Democrats and destroying the party. I will not vote for him if he's selected. I can gladly vote for Nader. And, if Barack's the nominee, I think Nader will have a real shot at the presidency.
Cedric: Did anyone catch non-Democrat Laura Flanders' interview with Nader and his running mate Matt Gonzalez? Where she called them "White" men? Nader's Lebanese-American and Gonzalez is Latino. Talk about trying to misrepresent them. They are America and that's a ticket I will be supporting if Barack's the nominee. Like Betty, I will not have to hold my nose to vote for Nader.
Jim: There's also a point in Buddy's e-mail about how Ralph's not noted that much in the snapshots so I wish C.I. was here to comment.
Kat: Let me comment because I'm there when C.I.'s dictating the snapshots. There's not time for everything. C.I.'s been trying to get the snapshots down to a smaller size. Nader was covered in, I think, two snapshots last week. Two out of five. Hillary was covered in all five. That's not intended as an insult to Nader but it is noting that while he's already a nominee -- one fighting for ballot recognition -- Hillary's in a very close race. There's not time for everything. C.I. was hoping to include Nader in Friday's snapshot but that ended quickly because C.I. had to catch the flight to Puerto Rico. There's a lot that's going on every day, I'm talking about what C.I.'s doing, and there's not time to include everything in snapshots. Were time not such an issue, Nader would be included in every one. But he's not in tight race currently and so, like other topics that aren't pressing, they don't make the snapshot.
Ruth: And C.I. really wanted to hit Thursday and Friday on the Congressional hearing. I know it will be picked up again in Monday's snapshot and that we are hoping to cover that here as well. I think a better criticism Mr. Walker could make is that the rest of us who post Monday through Friday are not noting the Nader campaign except by reposting the snapshot. For myself, that goes to what is the most pressing thing right now and, for me, that is Hillary's campaign.
Jim: I think that's a good point and we'll end the roundtable there. This was a rush transcript. If you see an illustration in this feature, it's done by Betty's oldest son. If you're bothered that Ava and C.I. didn't participate more, they have to be speaking at 8:00 a.m. this morning and they probably won't get any sleep so we knew ahead of time they might bolt in the middle of the roundtable.
