The Political Fiend

Lately, I’ve had a hard time getting motivated enough to keep up with the political goings-on in the world, even with today’s big Pennsylvania primary. I suppose like anyone else, Howard Dean included, I’ve grown weary of this long, drawn out, potentially damaging primary season. One candidate will walk away the winner, and the other won’t. Things will resolve themselves, as things tend to. At this point, if you’re not in Pennsylvania, you’re a spectator, and the best you can do is donate your time or money to your chosen one. That said, I’ve spent a lot of my time wrapping up loose ends; today is happily my last day of law school, and possibly of school generally. I’ve spent the last few weeks interviewing for clerkships, and just generally getting it together in preparation for the bar exam. And I’ve been watching more movies, which is what this post is really all about. Here’s a brief review of a flick I’ve enjoyed as of late.

The Sword of Doom – Directed by Kihachi Okamoto (1966):

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last few years, you’ve seen Kill Bill. Now picture the hyper-stylized violence of Kill Bill in black and white, rewind to 1966, and insert a psychopath as the lead, and you’ve got The Sword of Doom (TSOD). TSOD serves as a character study in derangement; the lead character is a man so consumed by violence, and so detached from humanity that he is able to kill hordes of foes without flinching, and indeed wears an eerie smile after the killing is over. The story follows the last years of the life of a young swordsman who’s sole goal would appear to be to make life as miserable as possible for himself and anyone who comes in contact with him.

The film serves as a critique of the samurai code, which endorsed, among other things “honorable deaths”, “righteous killings” and no remorse for justified bloodshed. Indeed, the lead character, Ryunosuke, is able to get away with destroying waves of human beings without violating the moral code that would have been in place during the feudal era. Thematically, TSOD is like There Will Be Blood, in that no explanation is given for why the character is the way he is, and rather the film’s purpose is to demonstrate one man’s failure to fit into civilized society. Equal parts The Stranger, Kill Bill and There Will be Blood, TSOD is heavy on atmosphere, violence, and questions about man’s potential for violent self destruction.

Yeah, that’s right; the guy who brought you such crapstravaganzas as Alexander, World Trade Center, and Any Given Sunday has returned to make a biopic about the life and times of George W. Bush, simply entitled “W”. Sounds interesting enough.  You’ve got the story of a man born into a political dynasty who just wants to have fun and live like a normal booze-swilling, coke snorting teenager/young adult/grown man. We’ve seen this before in film; Bush’s story is a startling analogy to the life of one Princess Jasmine, of Aladdin fame. Their lives are near perfect parallels, except that Bush replaced the flying carpet, pet monkey and beggar boyfriend with speedballs and Southern Comfort.

Luckily for all of us, Slate managed to snag a copy of Stone’s tentative screenplay and has excerpted some of the best bits of dialog from it. As far as I can tell, this thing reads a lot like another one of Stone’s works. Not Nixon. Not JFK. It sounds a whole lot like Scarface, which Stone wrote the screenplay for. Case in point, page 25 from the screenplay has W exclaiming: “Did you tell her I don’t like motherfuckers who gas their own people?! Did you tell her I don’t like assholes who try to kill my father?! […] Did you tell her I’m going to kick his [Saddam Hussein's] SORRY MOTHERFUCKING ASS ALL OVER THE MIDEAST?!“

This movie’s gonna be awesome; I just hope W is played by Al Pacino or Samuel L. Jackson.

Public Domain Photograph Courtesy of the United States Department of Defense

I think it might be about time to have one of those mother-daughter talks.

Last week at Butler University, Chelsea Clinton was asked by a student, a Hillary supporter, whether the Lewinsky scandal injured the then First Lady politically. Chelsea rebuffed the question with something along the lines of “It’s none of your business”. Fair enough; she’d never been asked the question before, and it seemed harmless to dismiss it; her response garnered cheers from the audience, who apparently agreed. One week later, at North Carolina State University the question again reared its ugly head, only to have it lopped off by Chelsea, who responded in the same manner as before.

It’s a real shame too; Chelsea is in the unique position to field questions that no self respecting journalist would ask Hillary herself. She could have taken the question and delivered a well spun answer about her mother’s personal integrity and resolve, while giving a nod to Bill for working toward patching things up. Instead, Chelsea’s defensive responses are going to keep the issue alive. The first time the question popped up, it came without explanation. The second time, the poser said he was asking because it was a public matter involving a then currently serving president; though I’m not sure that I agree, it would seem that an opportunity has been squandered here. Now that Chelsea has refused to furnish an answer, the question becomes that much more tempting, ensuring that it stays at the tips of people’s tongues, and at the media’s fore — exactly where Obama and McCain want it to be.

Photo by Anand M. Dhingra used under a Creative Commons license.

This morning Obama delivered his much anticipated speech on race relations in the U.S. He couldn’t have timed it better than he did. Throughout the primary season there had been murmurs that Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright, could become some kind of political liability; that exact thing happened when Wright was caught saying, essentially, that America asked for the 9/11 attacks, as a consequence of our international misdeeds. Smooth. Wright’s statements combined with Hillary’s recent victories and her comments on Obama’s national security credentials created an atmosphere of anxiety surrounding Obama’s next offering.

The speech was a long one, running just over forty minutes, and it’s tone was decidedly different than his usually rally fare. There was no sea of supporters at his back; he cracked no jokes, and rarely smiled. This was Obama on the defensive, aiming to rack up points by addressing with due gravity what he presented as a grave issue. His treatment of the issue of race in America was both delicate and urgent. He took great care to note that the economy above all else has served to equalize blacks and poorer whites, placing them side by side in unemployment and welfare lines. He made pleas to all races to give credence to the concerns of all Americans, regardless of their background. He observed that until the realities of race were dealt with, they would continue to serve as a ‘distraction’ from greater issues.

He also said a little something about religion. Or rather, he didn’t. In addressing his relationship with his inflammatory pastor, he tried to illustrate their familial relationship, likening it to that shared by many Americans and their pastors, priests, or rabbis. He notably left out the relationship shared by Americans and their “imams”, subtly admitting that the accusations that he is a Muslim are still too new and volatile to be explained away effectively.

In all, Obama’s speech was not only highly effective at dealing with the media’s reaction to the Jeremiah Wright debacle, but it had a transcendent feel about it; it dealt with far more than one candidate’s political woes by advancing the public discourse on race relations in a realistic and honest, albeit totally non-controversial way.

Watch the March 18, 2008 speech in its entirety below:

Public domain Photo used under a Creative Commons license.

It’s time that this stopped. Hillary Clinton has lost sight of the goals of the Democratic Party and has ventured off onto her own hubris filled path of destruction. This is the stuff epic poems are made of; the warrior so obsessed with with his own destiny that he falls into madness, destroying those around him in the course of a lustful pursuit of the end prize. Hillary Clinton, brilliant and capable as she may be, is essentially killing the Democratic Party’s chances of defeating John McCain come November. I’ll list my beeves:

1). Clinton has implied that McCain surpasses Obama with regard to national security know how; Nancy Pelosi has since pointed to Clinton’s statements on this issue as being the most telling sign of the unfeasibility of a joint-ticket.

2). Clinton made race an issue in the early states by claming LBJ was responsible for the Civil Rights legislation of the ’60s, essentially forcing an Obama response on the issue in an attempt to brand him as the ‘black candidate’.

3). Clinton has done little if anything to correct the statements of Geraldine Ferraro, who stated that Obama’s success is largely a function of his race. Though there is certainly an element of truth to this, Ferraro sounds more and more like a Republican as this thing grinds forward; her statements essentially dismissed all of Obama’s qualifications, making him out to be an affirmative action charity case arising from white liberal guilt.

4). Clinton has pushed for a redo of the primary elections in both Michigan and Florida after having campaigned there in spite of the DNC’s censure of both states for moving up their primary dates.

5). In a radio interview with NPR on March 13, 2008, Clinton did not outrightly support the notion that super delegates should pledge their votes to the candidate who garnered the most support throughout the primary season. When asked whether she’d be okay with the super delegates acting contrary to the primary results, she totally dodged the question.

HRC will no doubt hang on for dear life until the convention. It’s bad enough that this is costing Clinton and Obama tens of millions of dollars; does Clinton really have to cost the Democrats the presidency? Does she not see the fallacy of her ways; with so few states remaining, the likely result is an Obama nomination; after that then what? Will she make half hearted attempts to back him as the most qualified man for the job? Will anyone believe her if she does? Where is Al Gore, and when will he give Clinton a tap on the shoulder?

Photo by Barbara Kinney used under a Creative Commons license.