Phil Dellio's Homepage
59 Gort Ave. Toronto, Ont. M8W 3Y9
sayhey@rocketmail.com
Time out for an important document. Dave Rave, my old editor at Nerve, has put
together a list of his 45 favourite singles to coincide with his 45th birthday. Dave
is, by his own admission, a little behind the times when it comes to the "web net,"
so I told him I'd gladly post his list here. Biggest surprise: no Gowan.
-----
I only caught a bit of Face the Nation, so I may have missed somebody, but I think
this morning was the first time in ages where there weren't any Clinton people on the
Sunday roundtables. Gone in 60 seconds--after all the pyrotechnics, it's amazing how
suddenly and relatively quietly Hillary has receded into the background. I've come
across one poll that has Oregon down to five points; I just can't see Obama losing,
but if he were to, and assuming he loses Kentucky as lopsidedly as expected, we'd be
heading into some uncharted weirdness.
I've had to deal with a lot of kids who misbehave over the years. I've never
taught a kid whose life's mission is to wipe Israel off the map, but there are always
at least a couple each year who will consistently and predictably make bad choices.
Sometimes I use carrots to try to get them not to do these things, sometimes I use
sticks. (Metaphorically, okay?) Sometimes I enlist outside help--parents, administra-
tion, our behavioural teacher--most times I act unilaterally. I've never been big on
negotiating with 12- and 13-year-olds, but occasionally I'll do that too. I never have
pre-conditions before negotiations begin. So I guess, when absolutely necessary, you
could say I've taken on the role of appeaser.
Before Illinois and Arizona meet in November, they may face off in October. The
Cubs, White Sox, and Diamondbacks are all in first place right now--Arizona has had
the best record in either league the whole way, led by Brandon Webb's phenomenal 9-0
start, the first pitcher since 1985 to do so. The White Sox and D-Backs have each
won a recent Series, though, so this year it's the Cubs' turn. Alfonso in October,
Barack in November.
-----
A sad story that needs a sad soundtrack: the New Colony Six's "The Time of the Year
Is Sunset" from 1966.
-----
For all the battering Obama's been subjected to since that breakthrough night in
South Carolina when he was still walking on water, I think one thing remains more
or less as true today as it was then: the Republicans really aren't sure how to run
against him. Sometimes Wright/Ayers/San Francisco seems to be the way to go, but
then something like that congressional race in Mississippi will stongly suggest
otherwise. So there they were yesterday, flailing away on three different fronts:
Bush in Israel, an anti-Michelle (!) ad in Tennessee, and Karl Rove addressing the
NRA. (I'll give Huckabee a pass on his lead balloon at what I assume was the same
NRA event. He earned some markers for his sanity and civility over Wright.) I suspect
the Republicans are going to have a real fat-kid-in-a-candy-store problem from now
until November: they're going to be running against the first black presidential can-
didate ever, a deliberative intellectual with an unconventional background, a young
guy with big ears and a name that's allusive in all the wrong ways, and even though
they know they ought to tread lightly around all that stuff and "stick to the is-
sues," they just won't be able to help themselves. One after another--the President
today, some mid-level advisor tomorrow, the candidate himself next week--they're
going to dive right in and self-destruct.
No one ever mentions Biden any more for VP, but he sure would be a lot of fun.
I bet "sweetie" wouldn't be such a big deal with him around.
-----
I don't think I have anything worth saying about last night. I'll be very interested
to see what happens in West Virginia come November.
A few weeks ago, I was applauding the timing of Bill Richardson's endorsement--it
came right in the middle of the initial Wright maelstrom, and it was a clear statement
that at least one key party figure was in no way wavering at a critical moment. Far
from self-serving, I thought Richardson took a palpable risk in terms of his own pros-
pects for the next few years; no one knew exactly where the Wright story was headed
at the time, and if it happened that the fallout was about to take down Obama for good,
then Richardson would have essentially vanished right alongside him. Today's Edwards
endorsement feels a lot different, even though it too has been trotted out at a moment
of (albeit significantly less drastic) uncertainty. The main reason I know it feels
different is that it actually makes me feel sorry for Hillary, something I wouldn't
have thought possible.
I just don't get why Edwards dithered around for two months over this. And if he
wanted, for whatever reason, to hold off until after North Carolina, couldn't he have
at least spoken up before last night, when he may have had enough sway to turn an
awkward, somewhat troubling 40-point blowout into a generic, barely-noticeable 20-
point sleeper? Coming out the next day and stepping all over what may well be Clin-
ton's last flurry of adulation in this campaign is odd, to say the least. Edwards
would argue that the timing was in the service of party unity, but to me I see a guy
who reduces personal risk to the almost absolute minimum, while at the same time giv-
ing the appearance that he's stepping in, as Richardson did, at a moment when Bar-
ack's seen to be wobbling.
The endorsement speech was fine, and there were seemingly heartfelt words set aside
for Hillary. But if I were a Clinton supporter--and especially if I were female--I'd
see these two smiling GQ guys up on stage, hear the booing when my candidate's name
is mentioned, and wonder if last night even happened at all. I really think this could
have been handled with a little more sensitivity.
-----
Tomorrow night will be strange--I don't think I've ever watched a baseball game
or any other kind of sporting event where I was rooting for someone to get merely
trounced rather than obliterated. I'd say the over/under sits at about 65-35; any-
thing closer's no big deal (if she were to miraculously fall short of 60, it's a
disaster for her), but if the margin's wider--even though technically that's no
big deal either--we'll have to listen to all sorts of hand-wringing and pointless
second-guessing the whole night. Kentucky next week will be more of the same, but
at least it'll be cushioned by Oregon.
I suppose this is unfair, but the prospect of this one small state turning out
in droves for a defiant and symbolic repudiation of one party's presumptive nominee
has had me thinking about Neil Young's "Alabama" all day:
Alabama, you've got the rest of the union to help you along
What's going wrong?
If there's a West Virginian band out there somewhere with a rejoinder as brilliant
as "Sweet Home Alabama," I'd love to hear it.
-----
Of the many specious myths that have been been given an airing during the Democratic
campaign, I ridiculed what to me is the emptiest one of all a few days ago: that
Clinton's new-found "coalition" of hard-working Euro-Americans and small-town NRA
members constitutes a base of support she could count on were she to move into the
general (never mind the fondness right-wing radio suddenly has for her). Obviously,
a sizable chunk of her primary voters from those demographics would ditch her imme-
diately, not only for McCain but for just about any Republican with a pulse. No ques-
tion that she has millions of supporters ready to walk off a cliff for (or with) her,
but Joe Pennsylvania ain't one of them.
There was another striking example last night of how essentially durable I think
anti-Hillary sentiment remains. Remember a couple of months ago, when Saturday Night
Live returned to air with its debate parody, how it was widely speculated that SNL
was in Clinton's corner? That initial debate sketch had something to do with the six-
weeks-in-hell Obama subsequently endured--Wright and the all the rest of it was of
course the main reason, but the SNL parody lingered in the background.
Anyone who saw last night's opening SNL sketch is not going to be waiting around
for another friendly cameo from Hillary anytime soon. It was brutal--notwithstanding
that politicians are required to be preternaturally thick-skinned, I think it would
have been a very sobering thing for her to sit there and watch. The sketch was basi-
cally Amy Poehler as Clinton cheerfully enumerating and explaining the three reasons
why she was still the better general-election candidate: 1) I'm a sore loser (and
therefore won't support Obama the way he'll support me); 2) My supporters are racist
(ditto); and 3) I have no ethical standards (always an advantage in politics). One of
the popular cliches of the last few weeks has been people throwing other people under
the bus. Last night SNL threw Hillary under the bus, then they drove the bus back and
forth across her body for five very withering minutes.
-----
Reimagining one of the greatest sports photos ever:
Love it.
-----
I've archived the first couple months of this--"this" because I haven't yet figured
out a title that's not laughably cliched ("Decision 2008," "Campaign Notes," etc.).
For now it goes under the title "Barack." That will change.
I said yesterday there'll be three sections. Maybe I'll need four; her minions are
still all over the radio and TV, so, to paraphrase David Letterman, there may be a
transitional "The Great State of Denial" phase before the nomination countdown offi-
cially begins. And seeing as she's still begging to be kicked around some more, a
little bit about her USA Today interview.
If you've somehow managed not to catch what she said (the day after Indiana and
North Carolina), here's the key line: "Senator Obama's support among working, hard-
working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states
who had not completed college were supporting me." They're not, um, her words--as you
may have noticed from the faulty grammar, I edited out the first part of the quote,
which begins with her citing an AP report. So all the disgust and disbelief that have
greeted her comments should not be directed at her. The Associated Press is the real
villian here.
I tried to get a sound file of the interview, but I couldn't find one that was
downloadable. Here's a link where you can listen. On the printed page, there's some
ambiguity in that comma between "hard-working Americans" and "white Americans"; is
the comma meant to separate or link? Are we talking about two overlapping groups, or
does "hard-working" = "white"? Well, if you give it a listen, clearly separation was
not the intent; the comma really does seem to stand in for "and by 'hard-working,' I
mean 'white'." Sorry, let me rephrase my interpretation of what she seems to be
saying: "and by 'hard-working,' the Associated Press means 'white'."
It probably doesn't make much difference at this point. She says that in March,
and that might have been game over right then and there. In fairness, I think Obama
more or less got a pass on his "typical white person" remark when he was trying to
clarify an anecdote concerning his grandmother--it got lost in the shuffle of all the
initial Wright fallout, but I wouldn't be surprised if it resurfaces at some point.
The one thing I'm pretty sure he wasn't trying to do, though, was send a coded mes-
sage to black voters in upcoming primaries. The Associated Press, I'm not so sure.
-----
A couple of more entries and I'm going to start archiving election material. I'll
likely keep posting right up to Nov. 5, which would suggest three sections: Indiana/
North Carolina ends part I, from there to the official nomination will be part II,
and the general's part III. If Barack wins, I may or may not keep going.
One poor word choice in yesterday's post: "forgettable." With the first black pres-
ident looming, it's impossible that the upcoming campaign will be forgettable in broad
outline. The match-up does bear an unmistakable resemblance to Clinton and Dole in '96,
though, and the truth is, even though I followed that election pretty closely, I can't
recall a single concrete detail 12 years later in terms of day-to-day specifics--no
gaffes, no controversy, no volatile issues. All I remember is how an overwhelming
certainty set in at some point that Clinton would win. If McCain is Dole (war hero,
generally liked and admired by the American public, just as generally viewed as yes-
terday's guy) and Obama's Clinton (magnetic, loved and hated, carrying baggage that
makes a certain percentage of voters see red), I can see where the next few months
might unfold just as predictably as in '96. And maybe I'm way off here, but I'd be
very surprised if the result were any different; I just can't see Obama losing to
McCain. If you take a look at every election since '60, it's amazing how reliable a
predictor the simple concept of yesterday-vs.-tomorrow is. There are crystal-clear
examples like Kennedy/Nixon, Carter/Ford, Reagan/Carter, Clinton/Bush, Clinton/Dole,
and Bush/Gore, and then there are cases like Nixon/Humphrey, Reagan/Mondale, and
Bush/Kerry where the winner was at least perceived to be more forward-looking than
the loser (notice Nixon's neat repositioning of himself eight years after losing to
Kennedy). Johnson/Goldwater may fit into the second group, I'm not sure; Bush/Dukakis,
I don't know what the hell that was all about. The one clear counter-example is Nix-
on/McGovern, which also happens to be the precedent that Republicans are seemingly
pinning their hopes on. But '72 notwithstanding, McCain beating Obama sure would break
with the past.
Speaking of Nixon...Besides the three Obama Time covers I posted last night, he's
thus far shared two covers with Hillary, shared one with his mom as a three-year-old,
and he got a cameo head-shot onto a "100 Most Influential People" issue from last year.
So give him five-and-a-half covers so far. He'll get one more out of the convention,
at least a couple more during the general, and, if he wins, one for the victory and
another for "Man of the Year." That would put him over 10 before his first day in
office. If he then went on to serve two terms, and averaged five covers a year (very
unlikely), he'd leave office with 50. I read somewhere the other day that the famously
photogenic Nixon still holds the record with 55.
-----
Day-after comedown...CNN's 8:00 roundtable tonight mostly consists of general-election
volleying--lingering Hillary stuff, but mostly Obama and McCain. Right away, you know
you've seen this movie. I'm just not sure if the next few months will be as interest-
ing as the last few. As generally terrific as I think Obama is, you may have detected
that animus towards his opponent has had more than a little to do with my rooting in-
terest in the eventual outcome. (Hopping around CNN's electoral map of North Carolina
the other night, I noticed she took Transylvania County by a 53-45% margin. That seems
about right.) Take Clinton out of the equation, though, and you're left with Gore/Bush
and Kerry/Bush all over again: taxes blah-blah-blah, judges blah-blah-blah, military
resolve blah-blah-blah, etc. etc., so on and so forth. Obama/Clinton has been an almost
perfect confluence of competing dramas, and the last-gasp machinations of the losing
side have been sad, epic, fascinating. McCain is McCain: I don't have much feeling one
way or the other for him anymore, and I suspect he'll just bumble along from start to
finish, either winning or losing in the end not because of anything he says or does,
but wholly predicated upon whatever consensus the country reaches with regards to
Obama. Barack will have to provide all the drama himself this time; the historical
dimensions of his candidacy ensure a certain amount of drama up-front, Wright and
Ayers and what Sullivan calls "the freak show" guarantees some more, but this also
has the potential to be as forgettable a contest as Clinton/Dole in '96.
-----
I will, of course, burn in hell for last night's gloating post (about which, accord-
ing to Slate, there's still a 2.5% chance I'll feel major embarrassment down the road).
Blame Lanny Davis--after a couple of hours of him explaining why the entire nominating
process up to and including yesterday was just a fictitious construct, there's no floor
on the depths to which I'll sink.
Dizzying: when that first 28% came in from Gary sometime after 11:00 and--is this
actually happening?--it looked like Indiana was his. I agree with (Clinton supporter)
Mickey Kaus that the attendant scandal wouldn't have been worth the win. One thing I
thought back to during Obama's speech was that strange interlude when he was reeling
off 11 in a row, and how a couple of times she managed to speak at the end of the
night without even acknowledging that she'd just been stung with another damaging loss.
She's made progress: she made sure to congratulate him on North Carolina last night--
"must..demonstrate...cognizance...of...events"--even if there was still a trace of
that surreal "pay no attention to those flames engulfing me on all sides" quality to
her rah-rah exhortations. By way of contrast, he was gracious after Ohio and Texas,
gracious after Pennsylvania--when it really did look like the wheels might fall off--
and I don't have any reason to believe he wouldn't have been every bit as gracious even
if he'd gone 0-2 last night. (Preemptively congratulating her on Indiana was tactically
brilliant.) I don't think he's capable of anything else. You would think people might
value that in a president.
Something you get when you do an image-search on "gracious": "Gracious Spirit #1"
courtesy of the Brooklyn Art Project.
other pieces
records
playlists