The Hot Blog

And this matters because?

Crossing my fingers for a new HBO Special this year.

I have been reading this blog for a while and I had no idea DP was so political. Chris Rocks how? Because he likes Obama. That's a shock. I much rather read posts like the one made earlier today about Terry Gilliam.

Because he is funny and insightful... sorry that doesn't matter to you

Tread lightly, DP. Last thing we need is this place turning into Hollywood Elsewhere (gasp!)...:)

That he is. So are lots of people. You, for example. But the fact that he is funny and insightful does not give his views any greater weight than those of the most humorless, narrow-minded person. You like Obama. We get it. You don't need to invoke Chris Rock to prove it, or to corroborate or validate your opinions. They'll stand or fall on their own merits, just as his will. Besides, this doesn't seem like anything he hasn't said before. Now if he'd come out in favor of Hillary or McCain, that would be newsworthy.

The difference is, EO, that I actually seek discussion.

Do people desperately need to discuss this weekend's movies?

The theme of over a decade of my work happens to be reflected right now in the election cycle much more so than in the movies. I will write more on movies again... but that is the nature of this blog and of all of my work... ebb and flow...

I can apologize to those who find themselves chafing... but people chafe with festival coverage, box office, industry analysis, Oscar... anything I write. So be it. That's why I started BYOB.

This is much more interesting than festival coverage. The festivals, after all, as events in themselves, are pretty much irrelevant to 99.99% of the audience. The election on the other hand, is relevant to pretty much 99.99% of the audience. N.B. "Audience" does not = readers of this blog.

I do wonder where people get the notion that I write anything or post anything to PROVE anything to anyone.

I don't have anything to prove.

If I see something I think is amusing - including Rock making fun of Obama, though his position is clear - I run it. Please feel free to do the same in here.

Do you actually think the majority of Americans will vote for an African American? This discussion has been going on in my family since last year and we're in agreement that they might not. The Democrats should win this election (with the war, the economy...) but having Obama run may actually blow their chance.

A majority of Americans will not vote for Obama. By definition, since the number of McCain voters plus the number of non-voters will be greater than the number of people who would vote for him if he is the nominee. Nor, as we last saw in 2000, does he need a majority of the popular vote. All he needs to become president is the majority of votes in the Electoral College. Whoever gets 270 of those will be the 44th president of the United States.

Do you actually think the biggest movie star in the world could be an African American?

Do you actually believe that two black men could be the most powerful ad endorsers in the world for well over a decade now?

Do you actually believe that a black woman could be a Republican Secretary of State?

Do you actually believe that a black general could be the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Secretary of State as we went into an unpopular wat and remain one of the most respected figures in American public life?

Just askin'...

"Do you actually think the majority of Americans will vote for an African American? This discussion has been going on in my family since last year and we're in agreement that they might not. The Democrats should win this election (with the war, the economy...) but having Obama run may actually blow their chance."

This is worth an insult. It really is, but you need to look at the facts of this country. The biggest movie star in this country... a black man. The greatest athlete from this country... a black man. Some of the biggest selling and most loved musicians living right now... black folks.

You either live in the sticks, or believe all people are stupid hicks because this country is ready. This country has been ready the moment white kids in the Suburbs removed their shoelaces from their adidas.

Sure. This week goes to show that there are some knuckleheads in this country. Yet there are kids in this country turning 18 this year that may vote for the first time ever in this election, and they sure as hell will not vote for the OLD DUDE.

If you are still in agreement that this country will not vote for a black man. Well... I suggest you just OPEN YOUR EYES AND PAY ATTENTION A BIT MORE TO THE WORLD AROUND YOU. Shit.

Oh yeah Heat; fuck'em if they cannot handle the change. If they want to support the candidate who cannot win, but the media are keeping her in the election for their own shits and giggles. They can support her, but I am all about the political discussion. No matter how absolutely mental some people can be in here with their responses.

"two black men could be the most powerful ad endorsers in the world for well over a decade now?"

Who are these? Shaq and Tiger Woods? Michael Jordan?

IOI, could you do me a favor and explain, are you a white guy or a black guy or other?

Blackcloud, it's his blog. He gets to write whatever he wants.

IO, Obama really did screw up this week because the Rev is a creep. It is undeniable. But so was that speech... Democrats might not win this round, but they have a lot better chance with Obama than Hil.

The 'whose blog is it anyway' question comes up a lot, DP and even JW are right to say that, since it's their blog, they can write whatever the hell they want. But from that point it really is a matter of expectations, and consideration. Since Mr. Wells is an ass, it's more fair for his readers to ask him to not be an overt ass than it is in other places.

I make no excuses. There are times when I get mired in things that are not "expected" in here. I haven't stopped going to the theater just because you all haven't been reading about it.

After all these years, I am comfortable that I am delivering enough content that is "expected" to indulge myself when I feel the need.

And I might add... I don't whine and bitch when y'all don't chat up issues I feel are important and on movie point. (Of course, I have the advantage of contact with a lot of people who don't post in here but who are reading and have a lot to say about what has been written.)

P.S. to J-Mc... Jordan, followed by Tiger... both leading as spokespeople way ahead of the pack.

"I don't whine and bitch when y'all don't chat up issues I feel are important"

...

IOIOIOI, I'm pretty sure Ployp is from another country.

Is the United States of America ready for a black man as president? Yes the majority are. But is the United States of America ready for a black man, whose spiritual leader for 20 years was/is a racist, as president? I hope not. Just as I hope the American citizens would not elect a white man or woman in that same situation.

I'm sorry but I still can't get over that Obama stayed for 20 years hearing this trash from this man and allowed his kids to worship there also. Regardless what the polls say today when it comes to election day people will go with basic instincts.

Can you transcribe Eddie Murphy: Raw next?

"I am all about the political discussion. No matter how absolutely mental some people can be in here with their responses."

This is priceless coming from IOIOIOIOI.

Ployp is from Thailand, if I'm not mistaken. It doesn't take much to notice he's not American. Strange as it may be, America isn't exactly seen as an all-embracing nation internationally, IO. That somebody questions America's ability to accept an African-American man in a field outside of sports or entertainment is legitimate.

"No matter how absolutely mental some people can be in here with their responses."

IO was obviously looking in the mirror when he wrote that.

"Blackcloud, it's his blog. He gets to write whatever he wants."

Is that even an issue?

The difference is, EO, that I actually seek discussion. - Poland

You want discussion? Then why no link to Mamet's Voice article? That was more relevant than Tracy Morgan or Chris Rock. But, because it wasn't a handjob for Obama, it only gets Dave's recognition in the form of an anti-Mamet article from the UK, which offered zero insight.

The problem with all the Obama talk, here, anywhere, is that's ethereal. Look at Rock's comments, it's pure bigotry, but because it's pro-Obama comedy, who cares?

There is a level of expectation, not goals or hopes, but actions, that Obama is not going to be able to deliver on. Hillary and McCain don't have to worry about it because it's solely Barack's luggage. Obama's philiosophical campaign is eventually going to collide with real-world events. Have another Bhutto situation raise it's ugly head when it's only he and McCain and all the staged pauses and octaves won't help.

Alero - Obama can't come out and say "when I moved to Chicago, I was a stranger in a strangeland and people told me that the political mover and shakers were in Oprah's church". It would show he's a politician and then some people might cry. IMO, I don't think he expected his middle-class wife to buy into it. The only other answer is he's psychologically closer to Halle Berry than Tiger or Vin.

"A white man's had that job for hundreds of years — and one guy fucked it up for all of ya!"

The question for the Chris Rocks of the world is:

Do you really want a black president or just a very left wing president named Obama.

Something tells me if Condoleezza Rice were running for president...then we would see a presidential race where gender and race didn't matter.

Remember, they only matter because it is progressive who define people through identity politics. And even if Barack wins it will not stop. The left will use whether or not you voted for him (or Hillary) as the new benchmark to determine if one is racist (or sexist).

"IOIOIOI, I'm pretty sure Ployp is from another country."

Kamikaze is right, I'm from Thailand.

And my question is just a question, not an insult. I'm an outsider looking in. This is how I see the US.

Oh my god, this is so funny. They should have let him say these kinds of stuff at the Oscars.

Excuse the long post, but I thought some of you might be interested in what Josh Marshall posted today about the continuing animosity between Clinton and Obama supporters:

[I]t's worth saying that over the last couple months, during each campaign's moments of extremity, we've had supporters of each candidate (probably in roughly equal quantity) writing in and saying they wouldn't be able to vote for the opponent in the general election. In general I just think that people are deeply invested in the campaign (which is a good thing), and in moments of disappointment and frustration need some outlet, even if only expressed within themselves, to put some contemplated action to their angst. Threatening to upset the applecart in November is the most emotionally satisfying way to do that. Certainly too, when a campaign gets this intense and hard fought, there's just too much cognitive dissonance for people to be on the one hand seething at the other candidate and then also contemplating working for and voting for the same person.

So I see most of these promises as the emotional equivalent of things friends or lovers can say in the midst of heated fights -- the vast number of which they recant later and wish they'd never said.

Clearly though there are some people who really do mean it. A very small fraction I think, but there nonetheless. And there's really no better example of emotional infantilism that some people bring to the political process . One can see it in a case like 1968 perhaps or other years where real and important differences separated the candidates -- or in cases where the differences between the parties on key issues were not so great. But that simply is not the case this year. As much as the two campaign have sought to highlight the differences, the two candidates' positions on almost every issue is extremely close. And the differences that do exist pale into insignificance when compared to Sen. McCain's.

That's not to say that these small differences are reasons to choose one of the candidates over the other. But to threaten either to sit the election or vote for McCain or vote for Nader if your candidate doesn't win the nomination shows as clearly as anything that one's ego-investment in one's candidate far outstrips one's interest in public policy and governance. If this really is one's position after calm second-thought, I see no other way to describe it.

Blackcloud; no I was not looking in the mirror. I had a friend read your responses in that other thread, and he had no idea where the fuck the lot of you were coming from in terms of your responses. Again; a motherfucker insults me, but you let it pass? Mental. Please understand that some of us are having discussion even if it scares some of you.

Joe; only a Hillary supporter would right such an editorial. There is a difference between Hillary and Obama as HUMAN BEINGS. Only a Hillary supporter would write such a statement that ignores why people love Obama and believe in him, and believe he can change this country. Those same people do not feel the same about Hillary. It comes down to whose the better person... and it's not Hillary.

ployp; I apologize, and it's an interesting question to ask if you do live a broad. I just thought you lived in the US.

That aside; "IO, Obama really did screw up this week because the Rev is a creep. It is undeniable. But so was that speech... Democrats might not win this round, but they have a lot better chance with Obama than Hil."

He's a creep if you are white and do not understand that the African-American community has a whole lot of resentment that they do not share with the rest of the country. It's a good sign that you white people woke the hell up to the fact that some black folks are still pissed at you or your ancestors. This does not make it right, but it does explain Obama's speech. Since he knows what's going on. While people like Aero have no fucking clue, but want to judge him on it.

Oh yeah Jeff... again... imagine awesome... and there you go.

IOI, when you say things like 'you white people' it really would help me out to know for sure if you're white or black or something else.

Nicol: this is another good example of your constant 'subtext' that I referred to the other day, which is: Everything is the liberals' fault. It is the constant refrain of your writing, which you circle to over and over again. I don't really have a problem with you saying such a thing as much as I diagree with your pretense that you're some kind of neutral non-ideologue when that's exactly what you're not.

IO: Just so you'll know: I voted for Obama in the Texas primary. But if Clinton gets the nomination, I'll vote for her in the general election. Sorry, but I'm old enough to remember what happened 40 years ago when all the pissed-off Democrats who hated Humphrey decided to sit out the election

I'm surprised no-one has pointed out yet that Chris Rock's opinion might be worth hearing because he directed and starred in a movie about the first black president.

It was an absurdist comedy at that time...

"Those who are not with me are against me."

Is IO Dubya in disguise? They evince the same narrow-minded point of view.

"Please understand that some of us are having discussion even if it scares some of you."

We are. How about you join it instead of casting aspersions and hurling insults? As it is, while we conduct a dialogue, you are carrying on a monologue.

Luke... brilliant observation. Why hasn't anyone started exploiting that yet? Wow.

Joe... indeed you do remember what happened last time, but Hillary is simply not an option to some people. Lying (countless times about different things), Cheating (Michigan and Flordia), and Stealing (what would have to happen if her people got her way) may have helped the late great Eddie Guerrero, but I want more from a presidential candidate.

That aside; Cloudy you see it your way. I see it my way. Excuse me for going my way because it would seem we see this discussion from opposite ends of the spectrum. This is just an agree to disagree situation.

Dave - thanks for the round-up of Mamet links.

The argument against him is an easy summary - he's old, he's white, he's Jewish (as a way to discount his NPR comment), and then dovetail into full hostility. Gawker, obviously, never read or knew about Mamet's semi-regular UK columns, (which I first found via MCN), but the Counterpunch piece was the conniption I'd been searching for - first dismiss the argument, then retroactively trash his body of work as a way to nullify the decades of kudos and awards,(which he'd been receiving up to this last fall), then apply motivations that personally degrade the man. Gotta love the predictability.

Probably a bit more of a BYOB observation, Martin, no?

My way of thinking is that, yes, Obama and Clinton's camps each have the radical fanatical supporters, but there are many more voters who don't fall into that camp. And whether they voted for Obama or Clinton, doesn't mean they deserve to be berated and insulted by the likes of IO.

Maybe somebody voted for Clinton because they like her stance on health care (whatever it may be). Do they deserve to be called names like a kid in a playground? If you think yes, then I think you shouldn't call yourself a democrat. Or a human being.

Identity politics. Nice phrase to drop when you're trying to sound like you have your finger on the pulse.

It's ALL identity politics. So much is based on factors you have no control over. Kucinish never had a chance. Because his policies are out of whack? Not as much as the fact that he's short and has a weird name. It's about being telegenic, it's about being smooth, and it's about having the appearance of unflapability. It also helps to be nice looking with a good voice. The days of Lincoln (high, reedy voice and painfully skinny) and Roosevelt/Taft (fatties!) are long over.

Added to which, there may be some progressives who play the racist/sexist card as far as voting for Obama or Clinton is concerned. There's always going to be people with extreme views. But they don't speak for everyone and any time the label is applied broadly, it reveals more about the speaker's default opinions than any kind of reality.

For the record, Obama hasn't played the race card as far as voting for him is concerned. He's made a concerted effort to avoid any of that nonsense until this week when he had to take it head on (and I think handled it admirably). I would like to say the same for Clinton, but she's used the "the fact that I'm a woman means there would be change if I was elected" quote in too many debates for that to be true.

That said, not all of us progressives are itching to play either of the race/gender cards in regards to how people vote. In the end, this is an election about policy and the future course of our country. Some people will get caught up in the superficial shit, but that will always be the case, as it has been on all sides of any debate throughout history.

Teddy Roosevelt was never a fatty.
And hey, Nicol? I was an Edwards supporter until he dropped out. The most liberal/progressive candidate was a white guy.

By today's standards? Total porker.

"I'm surprised no-one has pointed out yet that Chris Rock's opinion might be worth hearing because he directed and starred in a movie about the first black president."

Get Mimi Leder on the phone, stat!

Chris Rocks because he's on Blu-Ray!

Well, a whole post without mentioning Blu-Ray... Someone had to fix that!

Blu-Ray.

It wouldn't be Hot Blog unless Jeff or BlackCloud complained that David wasn't steering the site to... Wherever the hell they could steer their own. Ugh.

Tofu, can you point to any evidence of me complaining about how Dave is steering this site? Didn't think so.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: