The Hooplah Reviews "Spider-Man: The Other - Evolve or Die"

We're digging into the vault for this review. I checked this out from the library, some three years after it finished, too curious to pass it up.

Stupidly long title aside, I can recommend it. While the twelve issue story could've been compressed, or the climax moved an issue later, providing more build-up for Morlun's part and Peter's illness, I can't find much to fault.

The set-up is simple: Peter Parker is dying.

In an effort to stave off death, he's seeking help from all fields scientific, natural and supernatural. But in the end, they all have the same sad story to tell. In these twilight hours, he interacts with his friends and loved ones, fights the good fight now and again, but it's a losing action. And if his illness doesn't kill him, there's help waiting in the wings. Morlun, the totemistic villain introduced at the beginning of JMS' run makes a surprise appearance, back from the dead, to harvest Peter's powers.

(For those who don't know the specifics of the totem-aspect of JMS' run, it boils down to Peter being the current incarnation of the spider totem, one of many animal-based powers floating around. Morlun feeds on these, gaining in strength as he kills and absorbs their power. It was all introduced in the very first JMS arc. While this knowledge is passingly mentioned, knowing it can't hurt; it also shows why this is such a big deal, as it's the climax of Peter's development and acceptance of this mystical nature of his being.)

Peter and Morlun fight in great superhero fashion, the nigh-omnipotent villain rarely suffering, the very mortal hero plunging on, knowing death is near but also willing to give all. For with great power--! You know the rest.

Morlun savages Spider-Man. It's barely a fight, in the end. Cops arrive, denying Morlun his meal, Peter is rushed to the hospital and the heroes gather around their fallen comrade. Then Morlun returns, you get another fight but wait!

Yeah, now Peter Parker/Spider-man's got weird new powers, debuting in his second (and last, to-the-death-of-both) fight with Morlun. And he technically does die, but the story is told well from there. I won't get into the final act, but there's some internal struggles, more mysticism, rebirth and a decent, suitably heroic resolution.

Consider this: it's a death and return story, told over four months and twelve issues in three titles by the same three creative teams. From a technical standpoint, it's perfect. The story might have a few structural problems, but you cannot fault the framework overall that contains this (somewhat major) Marvel Universe story within only one (small) family of comics.

Mike "Ringo" Wieringo and Mike Deodato, Jr. both show why they are so popular - Deodato especially, as he redefines his style to more reminiscent of early Sandman or Hellblazer than his Wonder Woman stuff. Pat Lee I could do without; he can't draw Aunt May (looks like an old tranny) and in general misses out on nuance. JMS, Peter David and Reggie Hudlin write as one here, without any big differences in style or characterization. It's a little melodramatic at times, a fault I have with Spidey comics in general (it's either wisecracking or hyperangst), but it is supposed to be a monumental event. Thankfully, Morlun is toast.

Much can be said for the way it handles Peter's last days with his family, the interactions with the supporting cast and the overall emotional content of the story. Perhaps it's all made more bittersweet by Ringo's death since publication, and the parallel I couldn't shake of a life taken too soon. Unintended, but it helps. Even without that, I think we can all connect on a human level with these works of fiction, better here than in any other Spider-Man comics I've read.

The Other sits well with me as I write this and I think I know why it works for me, when it wouldn't for regular Spidey fans: I'm not a fan.

There is little appeal for me in the character, because there never seems to be a decent or well-written challenge. But here we have a story that is obviously complex and substantial, but one that flies in the face of Spider-man orthodoxy. Were you a fan from the 60s and 70s reading this, you'd no doubt call it trash or whacked out mysticism (maybe not "whacked out." Perhaps dastardly. How did people speak back then?). 80s and 90s-era fans see something potentially as grating and confusing as the Clone saga.

But I've followed nothing, care little for continuity and can come into this almost a greenhorn to recent storylines. Almost. There is no explanation who the group of heroes is he hangs out with (The New Avengers, pre-Civil War) until their costumed names are dropped. And it didn't click that Jessica Drew, not Jessica Jones, was the "Jessica" always there, until "Spider-Woman" was mentioned.

I like it because it doesn't feel like Spider-Man - the teenage, wisecracking webslinger pining after MJ or Gwen and struggling to balance home and hero lives - but a What If Spidey were a regular hero without all that youthful drama? It might stand as one of the few mature Spider-Man stories in print.

I don't know if "The Other: Evolve or Die" was part of a larger "The Other: [etc title]" series of stories, but it could've been. I'd certainly read more.

And for me to say that about Spidey comics is saying a lot.

-Hooper

Read on, faithful few!

The Hooplah Comic Book 2008 Year in Review

2008: it was the year that saw me quit.

Now, before you get all up in arms, I didn't give up all comics; I'm not that strong. I'll still get trades/graphic novels/collections - those thick ones you see at the local bookstore. But I did decide enough is enough and have forsaken the purchase of single issues of comic books. I am finishing out two stories (Final Crisis and JSA: Kingdom Come) and once done, I can say I'm done.

Let me tell you why: it's all about cost vs. quality. Though comics have seen a resurgence in popular appeal (and both dollar-share and unit sales have gone up over the last few years), it's come at a high price. Constantly tying in an ongoing story to whatever movie or video game or cartoon is to be released damages the content; shoe-horning certain characters into a larger crossover can destroy that title's momentum and discourage new readers.

Earlier this month, I had thought about trying a comic year in review, looking at the major stories, creator moves and industry happenings, but I can't really work up that much enthusiasm. It is the year that saw me decide to quit singles, as I've said. That should be indicative right there of my opinion on these last twelve months.

It's a stretch that's seen ongoing, monthly titles not release twelve issues in a year. Delays have not always been a hallmark of the comic industry. One only has to look back at the way things were before Image set up shop - and even at the Big Two in the few years following - to see how things should be. Story and character was placed before writer and artist. The age of the comic-creator-as-superstar took firm hold with the splashy, million+ selling titles of Image in the early 90s where narrative was sacrificed for art, for flash-in-the-pan doodles that, in the end, proved unsustainable on the whole. That's Image, you say, the worst offender.

Look at DC's banner event this year, Final Crisis, or several years' back to Marvel's Civil War. Each had superstar artists and writers attached, yet neither, even with proper lead-time, could come close to a monthly schedule. A month-long hiatus was built into Final Crisis, yet it still has two more issues to go when we were to be at the finish line in a matter of weeks. We can blame artist JG Jones for the delays, which have lead to new artist hirings to Get Things Finished. Civil War just stopped and rescheduled part-way through to accommodate Steve McNiven's laborious penciling, yet for anyone who's seen the finished product, one has to wonder what he was doing with his time....

It's been a year of delays, a year of outright scheduling failures and a year of amazing wordplay on the part of Dan Didio, DC editor-in-Chief. Anything that's been received poorly, be it the ending to Batman RIP or the delays on Final Crisis or the Countdown/Death of the New Gods fiasco, were all part of the plan. To read his interviews over at Newsarama, you'd think he's unflappable in the face of criticism and the best damn liar ever. He plays with words like Jaws with Robert Shaw; there is no escape from the black hole of his blatant duplicity. The truth is absorbed and repurposed to make either DC or him the victim of outside forces beyond control. Maybe we just don't get it.

You'd think from that I'd be done with DC, but as stated, my last few singles will be DC issues - Final Crisis and JSA. For whatever reason, DC just puts out a better product, delays or not. Marvel's gotten a better hang of Event publishing, putting out World War Hulk, it's tie-ins and the whole shebang of Secret Invasion without too many hitches (Marvel leaves those for the Ultimates), but what they've sacrificed is coherency and story. World War Hulk was a two-issue fight stretched over a five-issue mini and thirty-seven tie-in issues. What story existed was reliant upon knowledge of Planet Hulk (recapped in a summary page) and in no way merited such a waste of trees and cash.

The worst offender, however, is Secret Invasion: eight issues, seven tie-in minis (for twenty-two issues) and seventy-one related issues in ongoing series and one-shots, all for a half-day fight that we knew would end with the heroes winning. That's ONE HUNDRED AND ONE issues all told.

Brian Michael Bendis is the culprit, not Didio's opposite, Joe Quesada (himself responsible in large part for the Spider-Man: One More Day train wreck). He's been masterminding this event for the last few years through his post as chief Avengers scribe and plotter. It was a fantasy for him, a dream to write this sprawling, pulp alien invasion mega-story, and it serves as a culmination to his run. You know what? Kurt Busiek, another Avengers writer (and one a mite bit better than BMB), had a great run a few years back, and it too culminated in a mega-story, an Event featuring the conquest of Earth by the despot Kang. Great swaths of real estate were destroyed, characters died and it was truly a world-shaking story. At the end of it all, you know what?

It all took place in pages of The Avengers. No mini. No tie-ins with other titles.

And this story lasted for months and months, essentially the last year of Busiek's tenure. Surely it could've been a four-month event, if the story could've been disassembled and scattered around two or four-issue minis featuring Spider-man and Wolverine and Thor and the Great Lakes Avengers and etc. But Busiek – and Marvel at the time – were a little smarter and still contained stories so you didn’t generate Event Fatigue, what we suffer from greatly now. DC managed this also, from the time of the original Crisis through the Death of Superman, Batman's breaking, Zero Hour and even that odd non-event, The Kingdom. Heck, Identity Crisis had ramifications in other titles, but the story was a done-in-one-miniseries, a small "e" event.

In ye olden days, an event such as Secret Invasion would not have crossed over into every other title but stayed contained in one Avengers' mini, with the side stories being woven in or dropped, and only Avengers-centric comics propelling the story forward. X-Men or Spidey titles could reference after the fact, but not be interrupted.

Probably the best example of major event referencing was in Grant Morrison's JLA, when Superman briefly became electric (boogey woogey woogey). It wasn't a big thing, just a throwaway line (and a great use of the new powers), but were the same to happen today, you can know that all the Supes titles plus JLA and maybe some of the other major player books would've had a piece of the story.

It's not enough to write a good story anymore. All comics have to be Events. I think this, over everything else, is just ruining the monthly comic trade.

Sure, the price point for entry is higher than ever (completely beyond inflation), but you can trade-wait and get discounts per issue, or use subscription services that offer up to 35% off. Singles can be made affordable, and there might, in the future, be a backlash with creators offering their titles for less at independent publishers (Warren Ellis is good for this).

No, Event Fatigue, as I mentioned above, saps the will to read these stories. I can't get full enjoyment, the thinking goes, unless I read all fifty issues of this story, regardless of how thin the connection is between The Runaways and an X-Men event, or Adam Strange and a Wonder Woman epic. It's a barrier erected for sales that erodes readership long-term. You don't win fresh, life-long readers with a continuity-laden, dozens-of-issues-spanning story.

Where are the single issue tales? What happened to them? Why do we need to spring from catastrophe to Armageddon to universal undoing and then back to street-level disaster that spawns a major conflict?

I love comics and the opportunity they offer creators to tell visual stories big and small without the budgetary restraints of modern Hollywood. For all the current deficiencies, I cannot see myself giving them up entirely, but singles? I can't do it anymore.

Any thoughts, Buck?


Buck: I’ll start with a brief comment about trade-waiting. The only real problem I have with it is the continued tendency from the Big Two to publish every collected storyline in a “prestige” or “deluxe” (and I use those terms very loosely) hardcover format. If the softcover edition were published simultaneously, this wouldn’t be a problem. But as it stands now, the more inexpensive softcover editions are not published until several months, sometimes up to a year, later. I can only assume there are people who are actually shelling out $20-$25 for a book that would have cost you $18 if you’d bought the individual issues. Whereas I, the consumer who waits for the softcover, usually pay $13-15 for what would have cost $18. It saves me money in the end, but the practice of publishing virtually your entire output in hardcover first is infuriating. The only problem is that by waiting for the collections, sometimes by the time I discover a title, it’s already been cancelled. It’s a Catch-22 when dealing with the second-tier books from each publisher.

Hooper: As a trade-waiter, I must agree. I cannot abide waiting the extra months for the softcover of a series that should never have a hardcover release. In my eyes, HCs should be reserved for the big deal books, not every story arc. Though it is one of the best comics being published, do I need an HC of each Booster Gold trade? Of course not, it's ridiculous.

A few more points:

Just for the record, I was done with singles over a year ago. The only single issues I’ve bought since making the decision have been the two event miniseries of 2008, Final Crisis and Secret Invasion, and Matt Fraction’s excellent Thor specials from Marvel.

Regarding McNiven’s art on Civil War…to be fair, McNiven’s art is far from horrible. I actually enjoy his work. I assume you mean it’s not extremely detail-oriented, and that’s why you’ve questioned the delay. If that’s the case, I agree.

Hooper: That is exactly the case. I can understand the hyper-detailed work of Bryan Hitch, Frank Quitely or, say, Ladronn taking more time, but McNiven would skimp on background and faces. There is a quantity of art I expect from delays, not just a quality.

Buck: In light of the comments regarding Didio, I’ll also mention Marvel’s explanation (or lack thereof) for the mechanics by which Spider-Man was made a bachelor again following a deal with the devil. The explanation from Marvel Editorial about just what happened at the conclusion of the One More Day story arc? “It’s magic. We don’t have to explain it." That’s sloppy, and a slap in the face to your core audience.

Lastly, don’t think that by venting our frustrations we’re condemning the entire output of DC and Marvel. Far from it. I can recommend several good titles from each publisher. For DC, Green Lantern has been very entertaining since its relaunch, and Geoff Johns is about to re-take the writing reins of the Flash, a character he was born to write. Johns’ work on Action Comics has also drawn good reviews. I’ve been enjoying Blue Beetle, though I was late to the game and the book has already been cancelled. And as for Grant Morrison’s All-Star Superman…well, every other comic book should hope to be half as good as that. On the Marvel side, I can recommend The Immortal Iron Fist, Captain America, Runaways, Daredevil, Avengers: The Initiative, Marvel Adventures: Avengers (these last two being far and away better than the two banner Avengers titles), and Matt Fraction’s Thor work without hesitation. Ghost Rider, Agents of Atlas, and The Amazing Spider-Man have also drawn some good critiques as of late.

So we’re not abandoning comics, and we’re certainly not abandoning DC or Marvel. We just wish they’d put a little more quality into their flagship efforts.


Hooper: Buck is right. Frustrations are as cyclical in comic books as flashes of brilliance. For every Event that is delayed and screws up half a dozen other on-schedule books, there's a Booster Gold, Green Lantern, Immortal Iron Fist or Captain America that renews not only our faith in the industry as Industry, but in comic books as great pieces of entertainment.

2009 promises to be another banner year for comic book publicity: several big-name movies are coming out (Watchmen, X-Men Origin: Wolverine), and if The Dark Knight succeeds in getting major award recognition at the Oscars, we can expect more people taking a chance on the source material. Will what they find be up to snuff with some pretty stellar storytelling?

Judging from 2008, I don't have much optimism in snagging a bucketful of new readers. Marvel will be entrenched in Dark Reign, the ludicrous follow-up to Secret Invasion that has the US government handing over control of all superhuman response to a known psyche case and mass-murderer. X-Men, from the few things I've heard, continues to improve, but it's still stuck in the mire of continuity. But DC invented continuity, and it ain't breaking free in 2009. Everything builds on everything. The stories are great for old hands, but not fresh fish.

The uncollected backlist might lure new readers, finding those great old series that linger in back issue bins and repackaging them in affordable trades. DC is doing this with Justice League International, the acclaimed series from the 80s and early 90s. These old stories are unfettered by current Events, and many have set beginnings and endings, so a reader can get four or six trades and feel satisfied, whereas now they have to slog through the wasteland of ongoings, delays, rescheduling, the crossovers without end….

If DC and Marvel have, roughly two-thirds of the market, then the great hope for comic books becomes the Other Third: independents. Dark Horse, Image, IDW, Oni, Top Shelf, etc.: these are the publishers who have the greatest potential to lure in new readers with – fancy this – new stories, engaging characters, lower cost-per-story since there are fewer Events to consider. You get more genres covered, not just "superheroes," and creators are better able to flex their muscle without editorial mandates to consider. Look at Boom Studios! and their growing catalog of genres covered: high fantasy, space opera, horror, conspiracy, crime, heist, cop, supernatural. I could go on, and that's great! Other companies offer "realistic" fiction, the sort of real-world stories many don't understand are present on the racks of their local comic shop. And I'm not mentioning manga, the bookstore juggernaut sub-medium.

If all were fair, that Other Third would become the Second Half, spurring a renaissance in comics as literature and a truly engaging form of mass entertainment.

Cross(over) your fingers.

-Hooper (w/ Buck)

And by the by, thank you Wikipedia and ComicBookResources for your excellent tie-in tallies for major event comics. Tie-ins need to mean something, as described by Alan Moore in his Twilight of the Superheroes proposal:

"The perfect mass crossover would be something like the following: it would have
a sensible and logical reason for crossing over with other titles, so that the
readers who were prompted to try a new title as a result of the crossover or
vice versa didn't feel cheated by some tenuous linkage of storylines that was at
best spurious and at worst nonexistent."

Looking over these tie-ins to find the total number of issues involved, while dollar amounts might be different or far closer, Marvel's approach is ridiculous to spread the plot out so much in a blatant cash grab, as it alienates readers new and old.

Read on, faithful few!

The Hooplah Reviews "Spider-Man: One More Day"

A lot has already been written about this story. It's one of those comic book arcs that "breaks the Internet in two," as even the editors have started to say. But this one had good reason: it featured the manufactured end of Peter Parker's (Spider-Man) marriage to Mary Jane, his crush and love since high school (with a few interruptions).

Theirs was a star-crossed love, and it was for that reason that Mephisto, stand-in Devil of the Marvel Universe, chose to erase their marriage from existence save for a small bit from their souls to savor the anguish, the loss, the sorrow - all in exchange for the life of Aunt May.

But I don't buy it.

The Peter Parker that sell his marriage to the Devil isn't the same one who hefted a building on his back or has struggled for years to atone for one small moment of selfishness, who has given his all time and again for a city that he loves. What he does is not the reaction of an adult who's gone through life and seen how it works. Maybe the circles he runs in make him feel immune to death, as it pertains to him and those around him (in "The Other," he does die and come back and no one's all that surprised). But Aunt May is old, and if this was her time, if her getting shot was part of the plan (as was Uncle Ben's death), why can't Peter realize the lesson he's been taught time and again, that sometimes people die, and we cannot change that?

It's a bad story; there's no redeeming quality. I don't know if this is J. Michael Straczynski's fault as writer or Joe Quesada's (as editor-in-chief of Marvel, though as an artist he does a piss-poor job of helping). Editorial mandate was rumored to be the reason for how the story turned out. I'm betting that JMS wrote it 70% how it was published, and the tweaking was small. Mephisto was am editor-added part, but the dissolution of the marriage to save Aunt May was not.

And that's what gets me. It doesn't make sense for Spider-Man/Peter Parker to choose an old lady over a young, fresh marriage and a whole future. In fact, it insults Aunt May, who would've gladly sacrificed herself, but now can at some point be burdened with the knowledge that to keep her alive, two lives were broken.

My problems with the story cover all aspects of each issue.

The art was rarely good, at times giving the characters goofy, odd-shaped facial features. It's not that Quesada is a bad artist, but he was very inconsistent throughout. The "Brand New Day"/post-unmarriaging scene was good, as was the depiction of Mephisto. But Iron Man and Dr. Strange are obvious weak points for Quesada. He looks to be aping Mike Deodato's excellent, almost Vertigo-esque worked turned in a few years' back on the title, or at worst, the Spawn/Greg Capullo house style. Not suited for the story.

Good writing can overcome bad or mediocre art. I cannot honestly recommend this story, and it's because of JMS' writing. Nothing is rational, nothing is in-character, little is adult. Iron Man/Tony Stark is a heartless, fascist bastard; Dr. Strange is a parody of a sorcerer; Mary Jane is too verklempt to be the strong woman she's always written as being. Peter Parker is childish, wanting the bad things to go away; unheroic, throwing fists and irrational actions before sane reasoning; and selfish to a "t," in that he even considers ruining MJ's life or breaking her heart. I don't see how any of those could pass muster.

When asked about JMS' orignal ending at Newsarama, Joe Quesada said, "This was the story he wanted to tell. In his story, Mephisto was going to change continuity from as far back as issues #96-98 from 1971. In Joe's story, Peter drops the dime on Harry, and that helps get him into rehab right away. Consequently, MJ stays with Harry, and Gwen never dies and never has her affair with Norman, etc., etc. And in the end, Peter and MJ are never married." JMS agreed with this interpretation. He found the Mephisto/magic way a cop-out, though he was still going to make the demon an integral part of the story, just not his published actions.

Regardless, it doesn't gel either way. It's still a narrative cop-out, a deus ex machina, authorial interference. We deal with a powered rule that frequently bends and breaks natural laws, but the stories themselves are written in the real world. We can afford to suspend disbelief for the internal logic of powers and magic, but to have that fly in the face of story structure and characterization - in essence to shoehorn in established characters to fit a narrative mandate - breaks the rules. Might as well have 88 pages of Quesada and JMS explaining what happens, just pictures of them at their desks with world balloons, maybe holding up sketches of the characters for reference. "This is the story we want to tell featuring characters that look like this but behave how we need them to in a story crafted to dumb down the mythos and insult the audience."

The follow-up story/event is "Brand New Day," showing us what happens when Peter and MJ haven't been married for the last X years. People who were dead...aren't, new villains pop up, the old single dynamic abounds and there's an underlying sense of something amiss. In capable (non-JMS) hands, I hear we've been given many good to great issues that are far better than what came before. Out of the ashes of bad stories, great ideas can grown.

So check out those new issues, and if you're curious, once they undo Mephisto's bargain and reunite Peter and MJ, how this all started, check out "One More Day" from the library. Read, as I did, to satisfy an itch. But don't buy it. Don't show economic support for trash editorial moves like this. In the annals of Spider-Man history, this arc will be a blemish, not-soon-forgotten, but easy to mask. I only hope the resolution is as much reward to the fans as it is apology for what they went through to get there.

-Hooper

Read on, faithful few!

Merry Christmas!

Happy Holidays from Hooper and Buck!



NOTE: The views of Optimus Prime do not necessarily reflect those of The Den of Mystery. We merely encourage you to celebrate, be it Christmas, Chanukah, Kwanzaa, Festivus...whatever holiday you recognize, have a merry one.

Read on, faithful few!

The Hooplah: Moral Quandry

So I feel dirty for purchasing a particular CD. See, I downloaded (for $5) Viva la Vida by Coldplay, and I don't know how I can rationalize it next to other CDs of true artistic merit in my collection. It's not a bad CD, rather catchy at times and better than other singles I've heard from them over the years. But I can't shake that by buying this, supporting this sort of...pop...I'm sullying my artistic integrity as a consumer!

This is tearing me up inside.

I understand, logically, that I shouldn't care about this. Buck thinks I worry too much about other people's opinion, but I could care less about the general public. What concerns me is me.

Friends who have discussed music with me over the years know I have broad tastes, but I tend to shy from mainstream pop & rock and hip hop/rap. All else is fair game. So the purchase of a Coldplay CD, one of the most successful pop-rock acts of the last decade forces me to reconsider, where I might not want to, those bands and CDs and genres I've so long avoided.

This is not the first time I've faced this dilemma.

When I met my wife, some six years ago, she (re)introduced me to country music, a genre I'd avoided like the plague since the early 90s and some...line dancing...that we shan't mention again. Back in Garth Brooks' heyday, I enjoyed some country, but not enough to buy any CDs. As country degenerated sharply during the 90s (not that it was at some creative heights before), I shut it out. Then came Mandy, with her bold appreciation for this type of music I had outright vilified.

Now I have two country radio presets programmed of my own free will. I found artistry within country music; more than any type, country best continues the storytelling tradition of balladeers and folk singers that form such a huge basis of American music over the last few hundred years. Dig past the top 20, and you'll discover a wealth of material that isn't all twangy, overproduced songs about wives in pick-up trucks running away with the dog.

Circling back around to Coldplay, I have derided them since I first heard "Yellow," a song still terrible to contemplate. Their emo stylings, masquerading as rock or mainstream pop didn't sit well, and I wrote them off to weepy girls and the guys who want to get them (sorry, Lindberg). So ignored, they slipped off my radar until this summer when I heard bits and pieces from their new album, which promised less falsetto and angst and arrangements more in line with the "alt. rock" tag they get in the press. It has more weight than previous material of theirs that I've heard (of course, it's also their first full-length album I've deigned listen to, so a full accounting might have to wait until I've gone to the library or dallied in illegal downloading).

In short, I like it. But I don't know if I like that I like it. Get me?

It's hard to set aside a musical elitism, especially one so finely cultured over hours of dead-end arguments with with other sonic snobs. Does this mean I've changed somehow, perhaps matured?

Do I have to vote Democratic next time?

Ah, but who cares? None of you. We're all sonic snobs in our own way (how many of you refuse to consider the idea that country music or rap or prog. rock might have merit?), and to overcome that obstacle and embrace new bands and genres (change you can listen to!) is a grudging thing.

Thank God Queen is still unpopular in the US outside of high fallutin' classic and prog. rock circles or I'd be screwed.

-Hooper

Read on, faithful few!

Popculturia: Inside Our Minds

To give you flavor of the minds of Buck & Hooper, the Den presents the following exchange, originally over e-mail, from Nov. 17, 2008.

(And as a bonus, you also get a bit of debate over Blu-Ray DVD and whether it's prudent to buy a player now or just wait. It's more engaging than you think!)

From: "Hooper"
To: "Buck"
Subject: The horror...


Hooper: I read [Steve Niles'] 30 Days of Night and [Mike Mignola's] Hellboy: The Troll Witch & Others. Both considered "horror" in their own ways, but with very different approaches. Of course I enjoyed the next outing of Mignola's big red and the contributions in this volume by P Craig Russell and Richard Corbett (?) on art. The stories are always fun and immersive; I'm even thinking about the archive editions being put out since I only have three of the trades, all purchased used or very discounted.

I understand your opinion on Niles' breakthrough work. How did this spawn so much? you more/less asked. I see it as one small story in a larger world of supernatural (vampire) terror. It's the prologue of a novel. I'll no doubt check out more as I see them. These vampires are almost more akin to zombies (destroy the head) than regular Draculas.

We've been watching Wonderfalls, the criminally cancelled Fox series from 2004. Four episodes aired, in two time slots, a year after they were supposed to debut. Thankfully, that meant we have a half season (13 eps) of a one hour show that form a mini-series, if nothing else. Bryan Fuller (Pushing Daisies, Dead Like Me, soon-to-be Heroes, I've heard) is one of the main creative forces; the only two people it stars of note are Lee Pace (Ned from Pushing Daisies) and William Sadler (villain from Die Hard: Die Harder, and a Frank Darabont player). It's a great show, full of whimsy and wit. If you don't remember, it follows the exploits of slacker Jaye who, after nearly choking to death, now is talked to by anything with an animal face. She sees them move, hears them talk and they tell her to do things. Sometimes cryptic, but always helpful in the end (even if it takes a while to see how). It feels like a mash-up between Joan of Arcadia and Dead Like Me but that's not a bad thing. I suggest renting it, if you can. Lots of fun.

Speaking of Dead Like Me, a new direct-to-DVD movie is being released in February, "Life After Death." It doesn't have Mandy Patinkin in it (when has he ever stayed with a show past the second season?!), but his head reaper role is filled by a new character played by Henry Ian Cusack (is that right?), Desmond from Lost.

I look forward to Quantum of Solace regardless of bad reviews.


Buck: I know of Wonderfalls without having seen it. Might rent it, as it also involved producer Tim Minear (Angel, Firefly, Whedon's upcoming Dollhouse). Fuller said something in an interview recently that he may try to revisit some Wonderfalls stuff in Pushing Daisies (which probably won't happen now, as it looks like it's going to be cancelled). And he was actually on Heroes during the first season, so it would be a homecoming for him. (Are you glad they axed Loeb from the show?)

We'd gotten behind on House and Numbers lately, so Friday night saw us watching two weeks' worth of Numbers online and taping the new episode (which we'll watch this week) and last night we watched the episode of House where Cuddy almost got her baby, and have last week's taped and ready to watch. Also working our way through Buffy Season 3.

From the Cuddy/baby episode:
House: I need a genetic disease.
Wilson: I'm sure you're carrying a few.

Also, we might be getting a Blue-Ray [sic] player. Really weren't considering it too strongly right now, but Sears has a nice-looking Sharp player for more than half off the sticker price.


Hooper: Blu Ray, really? I hear there a lot of software upgrades needed and with prices what they are.... You know me. Where you had a book of DVDs started our sophomore year, I had somewhere like ten discs, and three of those were Shaka Zulu. It's not that I don't support new tech, but I want to see prices drop. And is the format really all its cracked up to be? Can you tell me, with an example, how this is a Great Leap Forward and not just LaserDisc or DivX come round again?


Buck: From what I've read, many consider it to be the last physical format we'll have until digital download becomes the norm. What do you mean by upgrades? You don't just plug it in? As for prices, I was looking at some movies from earlier this year and last year, that have been out long enough there's no "first week of release" price drop or anything, and for example, on Amazon, Transformers on Blue-Ray [sic] is actually $5 cheaper than the 2-disc standard format. The player itself is only $180, so considering the format it's a hell of a deal, and I imagine we'd get at least a good 5 years out of it. We've had our current player that long.

Again, it's not like we're running out and buying it. We just noticed


Hooper: When I say "upgrade," I mean when I buy a blu-ray release, what benefits (aside from audio/visual which, not having an HD TV, means nothing to me) does it offer over a regular release? You mentioned price, but from recent Best Buy and Target jaunts, they are still pricier. I mean features. Do I get everything from a 2-disc DVD plus more all on one disc? Is that the benefit?


Buck: Sometimes there are Blue-Ray [sic] exclusive features, but I believe all the usual standard features are also on the BD disc. I think many special editions are still 2 discs though.

Another reason for the considertion that I hadn't mentioned is that our current player is a DVD/VCR combo. We really don't use the VCR side of it anymore, and it's just getting a little old in general. So our basic thinking is why not upgrade to the fancy player while it's cheap? For the record, this doesn't mean I would buy exclusively in the Blue-Ray [sic] format. I really don't need to see Tropic Thunder in HD, for example, but stuff like Transformers, Iron Man and the like would look nice in that format (here I refer to the inevitable purchase of the sequels; not planning to double-dip just to get HD).


Hooper: See, that first paragraph is where I have an issue. I don't really care about the sharpness of picture as some people do; DVD video is, in general, great to me. What I look for with DVD is utilization of the format - i.e., taking that extra space and packing it with supplemental features. I think regular DVDs have been getting better and better at this, but I see the promise of a BR disc is two - or maybe three - discs worth of material on one disc.

Consider this. If I remember correctly, DVDs have around 5 GB of memory, but BR approach 45 GB (was HD 50?). Nine times the capacity. Granted, much is taken up with picture and sound, but that's not so much. If you don't film the extra features in the most luxurious definition, basically just a little better than regular DVD, are you telling me you can't get, say, the 3-disc Hellboy (first one) on one disc?

I do think we'll see a more formidable disc format before direct downloads (which I think are a decade off, unless T3 ethernet or fiber optic cables start replicating underground and jacking everyone into a system ten times faster than what we currently have). It's too capitalistic, not enthusiastic. Looking for the buck, not the bang.

Maybe I'm just too idealistic. You know what they say about Republicans: our dreams, like our vampire forefathers, are immortal.


Buck: The last line of your e-mail is going on my Christmas cards this year.

That aside, there's one thing that hadn't occurred to me until a few minutes ago: Originally, we'd planned on upgrading to an LCD television after we moved because the price is going down and many of our local stations are already broadcasting in HD. (We'll probably still do this.) Blu-Ray was something we'd discussed here and there, but hadn't seriously talked about it until Susan saw this sale price this morning. But if we're not upgrading the TV for another 6 months or so, what's the point of upgrading to Blu-Ray and not being able to enjoy it? If we just need a new DVD player, Wal-Mart's got a couple for $35. Or we could just watch it through the Playstation (which we did a couple of days ago when one didn't want to play in the regular player; sound's not as good going through the Playstation though). So yeah...maybe we won't upgrade right now.

Oh, and I think the 3-disc for Hellboy 2 is a 2-disc on Blu-Ray. Just for sake of argument.


Hooper: That's my point. This is next-gen media. Why get it unless you can go whole hog, and that means TV + player? Mandy and I have an all-in-one (TV-VHS-DVD) that is sucking hard and refusing to play DVDs (unless you open and close the tray a number of times), but we're looking to get a new DVD-VHS player to use until BR players drop in price in general, not just outside sales (and the hardware and software loses some of the bugs).


Buck: Good point. I think we'll stick with what we have for now, possibly getting one of those ultra-cheap players at Wal-Mart I mentioned if ours is in fact dying.

Who knows? By next summer they may have an LCD tv with a built-in Blu-Ray player (They already have them with standard players built-in).





[Note from Buck: I quite often send Hooper amusing webcomics I run across in my daily browsings. These sorts of images are a vital part of our e-mail interactions.]

Moving on to new topics, did you read either my Quantum mini review or the War of the Worlds updates?


Hooper: Yes to the first, no to the second. I intend to see QoS, and I'm sure I'll enjoy it. Is it better than Die Another Day? Then I shall enjoy it.


Buck: If you liked what I did the first time around with WotW, then you'll love the updates.

I like how your litmus test for Bond films is that it only has to be better than what was possibly the worst entry in the franchise. I thought on the way home from the theater about your disdain for that film, and again say that if you start the film with Bond's release from the Korean prison and stop it just before he meets Jinx, it's actually a pretty decent spy story. Of course, then it's only 20 minutes long and has no resolution, but we can't afford to be picky.

***

Now you know! And knowing? That's right.

Read on, faithful few!

The Future

I am posting this from my G1.

Booyah!

-Hooper

Read on, faithful few!

Happy Thanksgiving

A happy holiday to you and yours, from The Den of Mystery. We hope you gobbled it good today.


Bonus holiday dinner thought to ponder, courtesy of Hooper: "I can't take anymore stuffing!"*


Bonus holiday question to ponder, courtesy of Buck:

Can you watch any scene in Iron Man where Jeff Bridges is enjoying a drink and not picture The Dude nursing a White Russian? (Granted, you probably need a passing familiarity with The Big Lebowski to make the connection.)


-The Management

*(That's what she said.)

Read on, faithful few!

The Audacity of Joke

The following is available from Red Bubble on a t-shirt:



Politigeeks, try to tell me you don't need to change your pants after seeing that.

This is, of course, a parody of:



-Hooper

Read on, faithful few!

Michael Crichton, 1942-2008

The Den of Mystery takes a moment to mark the passing of author Michael Crichton, who lost a battle with cancer this past Tuesday.


Buck:
I devoured much of Crichton's oeuvre in my formative years, with The Andromeda Strain, Sphere, and Jurassic Park being my favorites. In fact, I just finished re-reading Jurassic Park last week. I must confess that aside from Prey, I haven't read much of his more recent work. I remember not loving it, but perhaps I'll take the time to revisit it now, as well as checking out State of Fear, Next, and the as-yet untitled work that will sadly be his final novel, to be released next year.

Hooper:
When I started reading with real intent, Crichton was one of the first authors I really took to, absorbing much the same books as Buck mentioned, as well as Congo, The Lost World and the brilliant The Case of Need (writing as "Jeffrey Hudson"). His prose was always clear, crisp and accessible, without speaking down to the reader. No one will confuse him with Faulkner; his writing was mainstream and any messages weren't to be hidden by complicated stylistic structures or obtuse characters. My dad's favorite is undoubtedly the Viking-centric Eaters of the Dead, which only shows Crichton's range as an author. Hard Case Crime is re-releasing his early mystery novels, published under pseudonyms, in affordable paperbacks. If you love to read, you'll love the blend of science, thrills, humor and excitement that Crichton brought to the craft. He will be dearly missed. (He is the second of my favorite authors to have died this year, following the (cowardly; that's right, I said it) suicide of David Foster Wallace.)

-The Management

Read on, faithful few!

TPH: Make Your Case (Part 2)

The Political Hoedown!
Noting the irony in the phrase "Red America"


Jump on over the the Political Hoedown to see near-daily updates (that's right - it now pays to go there daily) as well as the last in a batch of Cases for or against the Presidential candidates:

He Ain't No Maverick: The Case Against John McCain by Jim Jubilee

Based on Merit: The Case for Barack Obama by Townser

Rebuild: The Case for John McCain by Nashville Sticks

Aside from those, there are a bunch of other posts including a look at media bias (in the form of a letter to the editor), what's become of middle-ground politics, Obama's superior position going into election day, last-minute polling numbers and the resulting head-scratching, and a heartfelt, open letter to Sen. Obama by a small businessman from Texas that is absolutely essential reading on both sides.

Remember to vote tomorrow if you haven't, and do so for the candidate you think will do the best job, not the one your party supports or your parents taught you to like. Ignore the outside noise and focus on the country and the issues facing it. Who has the best chance of meaningful change? Which candidate believes in your version of American and her dream?

Walk proudly into the voting booth and make your choice. I only hope I've helped inform it a little these last ten months.

(And yes, you will hear from me tomorrow.)

Best regards,

-Hooper

The Political Hoedown
Advancing the Conversation

Read on, faithful few!

Night of the Smelly Basset

Yeah, Mandy and I might have gone a touch overboard with the full-body skunk costume for brave, twice-sprayed Neville. It's like waterboarding...for a dog.





-Hooper

Read on, faithful few!

TPH: Make Your Case (Part 1) & The Hoedown Moves!

The Political Hoedown

Some of you might have noticed the Hoedown hasn't been posted in a few days. Well, it's leaving these shores, though I'm not leaving the Den. I'm proud to present the all-new, yet-still-the-same Political Hoedown. With its own site, I can post daily without clogging up the Den's main page. There will still be TPH posts here, important ones, but the bulk won't be linked directly.

So add The Political Hoedown to your bookmarks. It's all the same exemplary political coverage, but now even moreso.

Onward! The following are the first of six posts aiming to convince you to vote one way or another. Following this round, we'll have another case for each candidate, as well as one against McCain.

Serving Democracy: The Case for Barack Obama by the Carolinian

Spelling Disaster: The Case Against Barack Obama by L.O.G.

The Limitless American Dream: The Case for John McCain by Erik M. Held


Be sure to check out all of the Political Hoedown's new site. There have been posts you may no nothing about! As usual, no registration is required to comment, and we appreciated any and all feedback.

Thanks for your continued support!

-Hooper

Read on, faithful few!

TPH: The Final Debate (Dun dun duuuuuun!!!)

The Political Hoedown
The Sit-Down Debate (#3)


Forced to share the a table, John McCain and Barack Obama faced off in an uncaged verbal death match last night at Hofstra University. Moderating was the elderly, but deft Bob Schieffer of CBS, probably the best moderator we've seen this political season. The questions cut to the quick on many issues, were not softballs and prompted intense back-and-forths unlike anything we've seen in the previous 2008 Presidential debates.

Not that it was really that exciting.


***

Obama still monotoned his way through most answers, sticking to the stump speech talking points, using the phrase "middle class" about as often as he could and, if the opportunity arose, getting in some quick jabs or "nuh uhs!" to block McCain's attacks. On the issues, he was able to give a broad, appealing answer for any Health Care questions without really getting into the nuts and bolts of the matter. It was probably his best response, but certainly he did not show a complete mastery of all domestic matters.

On education, a key issue for any parent or potential parent, he said nothing. Oh, he said a lot of words, but they boiled down to an ignorance of the underlying problems and a desire to increase funding at a federal level without holding states at all accountable for the money they currently spend from their own coffers, much less the federal dollars. When the talk turned to vouchers in District of Columbia public schools, he agreed with McCain that they worked, then said he wanted to move away from them because there weren't enough available.

If something works in a pilot program, you usually expand, rather than eliminate, the specifics of the program. That leap in logic, pretty small, eluded Obama and I'm sure McCain is hoping this resonates particularly with urban parents who see their schools deteriorating and want another option.

Taken overall, it was another bland performance, or as the punditry says, "reassuring." He might be black, in other words, but he's not gonna steal your Jeep's spare tire. Smooth move, media.

But this wasn't about Obama. The last two debates haven't been. He has proven that he can give reasoned answers to questions, regardless of their origin (read: stump speeches), and that he can "look" presidential. It is known he is a good speaker, able to portray his ideas in a way that most can understand, even if nuts-and-bolts workings aren't overtly discussed. He has done very well in these debates, because there wasn't a very high standard he had to reach. Provided he didn't ramble like Kerry or act peevish like Gore or wild-eyed and hostile like Hillary, he had it in the bag.

Could you sit for 90 minutes and act respectable? Exactly. Not a lot of pressure was placed on him to present specifics on all of his plans, how they differ from McCain's (they are both very close on education and energy with only a few, though key, differences), how bipartisan they are or can be. Nor was he really pressed about his past legislative experience. He had to show up, not look like a clown and, three even-if-unexciting debates later, no big shoes or red, honking nose.

***

For all he was expected to do, McCain both hit the mark and wildly missed it. His two biggest missteps were Health Care and Obama's associations. There are enough circumstantial links between ACORN, Ayers and Obama to keep the latter flummoxed and without enough time to answer everything, but McCain only scratched the surface, trying to keep things above board (as his was considered the more negative campaign going into the debate).

On Health Care, his plan looks more complicated, but below the surface turns out to be a savings for the regular consumer and a "hand up" type proposal; he did not let people know Obama's was more hand out than not, and that simple in appearance, it was a mess when you get into it (a little partisan, I apologize, but I'm very concerned about health care costs long-term). Another prime opportunity to back Obama against the wall and he didn't take it.

True, the format - only 90 minutes with supposedly only 10 minutes per topic - limits the sort of true back-and-forth we need on these issues. For a candidate coming from behind, they either need a stellar quip that rocks their opponent back on their heels, or a mini-speech that effectively outlines a proposal while showing its merits versus the other guy's. McCain constantly needed more time to make his case now that he's realized there are three weeks left, his campaign staff led him astray for months and if he wants to even lose with dignity, he needs to make up at least four points in the polls and about fifty electoral college votes.

Sounds pessimistic, but as I mentioned when talking about Obama, McCain scored big on education. In the past, he's talked about the Department of Education in less-than-fond terms, even supporting its elimination. Right now, states provide the bulk of education funding for their states, though the Federal Government also chips in. A lot of money is thrown at education, but it's inexpertly applied. We're lagging in worldwide education standing because we can't add up the numbers we're spending on it, to paraphrase a joke my wife told me. McCain made it clear that he would aggressively attack education funding to cut the wheat from the chaff, make schools accountable, increase charter schools (which work) and vouchers (which also work, but aren't out of test districts yet). It's classic conservative policy - lean, efficient funding that gets the job done right, instead of a bloated budget (to be increased more under Obama) so big it's bound to hit the right beat every now and again.

And that leads in to McCain's key - and potentially game-changing - victory for the night. Spending & the Government. He emphasized time and again that he was for reduced government spending, spending freezes coupled with a "scrubbing" of every department of government to rid them of waste and lower taxes for everyone. Saying the corporate tax should be lowered was a gamble, and an open invitation to Obama to bring up Exxon and other oil companies that would benefit (McCain never in the debates reminded Americans that more than oil companies are corporations and will benefit from such a cut, as will your pocketbook), but it got the idea out there and gave him another stump speech talking point. Obama repeatedly mentioned that we needed to invest in this or that program, code for increased government spending.

By reigniting, even at this stage, the idea of a tax-and-spend Democrat running deficits up and mortgaging our children's future, McCain can avoid character assassination as the driving strategy. Here, domestically, is where they differ. Can McCain drive that stake into the Obama's campaign and make it stick? That's the big question.

***

The line that sticks in everyone's mind? John McCain said, "I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago." It effectively stopped the "Bush III" or Bush/McCain bit Obama's been throwing around, and opened the door for McCain to attack Obama on never opposing his party (to which Barack failed utterly to present a time he did think for himself. The tort reform bill? 40% of Senate Democrats supported it. Hardly breaking with your party).

Does the winning sound bite mean he won? For that accurate hit that line landed, it did not make up for Obama's measured, cool, almost detached approach to answering questions. McCain was hopped up on crack for most of last night, full of energy, overflowing with talking points, righteous indignation and hope for victory. It, unfortunately, did not come through that way in the split screen, the big judge of debater's success, i.e. reaction shots.

So I can't say that McCain won based on his performance. Reading the transcript, I can't honestly say Obama won, since he repeated himself for the third time in a row. No change, no deviation, no off-the-cuff explanations of programs. Even McCain's answers seem run through with too much excitement, throwing him off track at times. He dominated for a third, went off the rails and missed opportunities, but then came back to finish strong. I think it was his best showing. Obama's best was last week, and here he appeared peevish, annoyed that he had to sit next to this old coot, and uninterested in really diving into the discussion. But he also appeared more focused for the balance of the night, and that might have won him the election right there.

***

Obama and McCain have been campaigning since early 2007 at this point. We know where they stand and the depth of their stances. By now, if you don't know a particular policy - unrelated to the bailout or economic correction/crisis/collapse - that's not the candidate's fault. Through writing, speeches, debates and surrogate interviews they have articulated exactly what they think about taxes, health care, Iraq, Iran, education, abortion, etc.

Last night's debate reminded us that for the first half of 2007 and 2008, John McCain led in national head-to-head polls. He's passionate, driven, focused on reform in government and changing course from what was promised in the Bush Administration to what we ended up with. Yesterday we also understood, yet again, why Barack Obama is a Democratic golden child, a leader and mouthpiece for his party, the true victor of the primaries and the driving force behind every political discussion in the latter half of the year.

Who is John McCain? Who is Barack Obama? What do they stand for and do I know more last night than I did yesterday morning?

I hope the debate came close to answering those questions. It was important, somewhat boring at times yet crackling with electricity at others.

***

We vote two weeks from next Tuesday. Not much time to make up your minds. We will be presenting cases for and against each candidates to help you if you're on the fence or give you talking points if you're not.

If you want to participate, send me an e-mail at denofmystery@gmail.com or, if you're on the distribution list, reply and let me know what you think.

A bit of humor: when interacting with the crowd at the end, McCain sort of waved his hands at one guy and did a little Gene Simmons' impression, over and done in a second. Well, someone had their camera ready:



God bless him, but that is not a flattering picture.

But Obama has looked...goofy, to say the least, including in this shot, at the first really featuring Joe Biden:



I don't know what to say that wouldn't be offensive. I...guess that means I'm going to hell.

-Hooper

Read on, faithful few!

Meet the Press: January 22, 2006

Tim Russert interviewed Barack Obama in January 2006, covering a variety of subjects including 2008 campaign possibilities.

***

MR. RUSSERT: But there seems to be an evolution in your thinking. This is what you told the Chicago Tribune last month: “Have you ruled out running for another office before your term is up?” Obama answer: “It’s not something I anticipate doing.” But when we talked back in November of ‘04 after your election I said, “There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your six-year term as United States senator from Illinois?” Obama: “Absolutely.”

SEN. OBAMA: I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed.

MR. RUSSERT: So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?

SEN. OBAMA: I will not.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator, thank you very much for your candor and for joining us and sharing your views.

***

Read the full interview here.

-Hooper

Read on, faithful few!

TPH: Can I respond? Pleeeaase?!? (Debate #2)

The Political Hoedown
The Town Hall Presidential Debate

Wouldn't it have been neat if they could've actually done the town hall debate in a town hall instead of another cheaply built, blue felt stage? I think so.

I also think it's very hard to watch these two debate. McCain obviously dislikes Obama, finds him repellent on a number of issues and morally questionable. Obama, on the other hand, thinks McCain = Bush and that Bush = Misguided and Evil so....

Tom Brokaw moderated at Belmont University in Nashville, TN. Could've been worse, but it wasn't terrific, let me tell you.

Deep breath, people. Here we go. I promise to be quick.


***

The night started very well for John McCain, since Barack Obama didn't even thank him for being there, a standard courtesy. In their first economic go around, McCain had decidedly more "original" content in his answer than Obama's bland stump speech cannibalization. In fact, we were introduced to what could have been (and sort of was) a too-repeated Obama phrase, like McCain with maverick: middle class.

That's right, Obama let you know, America, then he believes there is such a thing as the "middle class." Class. McCain referred to this strata of citizens as "middle income," a key distinction. Republicans start culture wars, but Democrats thrive on class warfare. This set the tone for much of the economic and domestic back-and-forth. While McCain hammered down his various tax and health care policies (on the latter, not as effectively as he might've), Obama insisted it was all to benefit the upper class in the country, not you, the...middle class.

It doesn't matter than 2/3 of corporate tax cuts benefit the workers directly in bonus, incentive and wage increases, or that the last President to raise taxes on anyone during a recession-leading-to-depression was Herbert Hoover. But it's hard to say that (and McCain tried with the latter) without sounding angry and crotchety, and McCain already has enough issues with that. Obama had to rest on his laurels last night, his staid, tried and true method of cheerleading his tax policy, and that's tying the cuts under the Bush Administration to McCain (though he voted against them).

***

Let's be quick about Tom Brokaw. He wasn't a bad moderator, and would've been decent for a standard debate, but he put too many of his own questions in the mix. What he was good at was slapping Obama down each time he ran over his limit or tried to get the last word in after good McCain jabs. It was inappropriate for Obama to, acting like a brat, interrupt Brokaw or McCain (Can I respond? Can I? I need to!) just because he felt he'd gotten the bad end of a question.

!!Commentary!! The media won't pick up on it or criticize him for this, because it'd show he isn't cool under pressure, can't practice proper decorum and just doesn't look presidential at all times. !!Commentary!!

***

*Bush + McCain = Answer for Obama
*Obama's Inexperience + My Record = McCain's Responses
*Fannie Mae + Obama = McCain Attack Strategy
*Deregulation + McCain = Obama's Sharp Retorts

There are many formulas like those, used broadly over the last and this debate. Obama really went after every economic turn by McCain as an attack on the middle class by dint of being pro-business and pro-across-the-board tax cuts. On foreign policy, McCain is hammering the line that Obama doesn't have the wherewithal to be commander-in-chief, the experience, the judgement. Their attacks against the other weren't as pointed as their VPs made in their debate, as the mood of the country has turned from that thinking and what's less hostility and more solutions.

The one spot where McCain came out clearly ahead and didn't lose even after Obama spoke was on energy and climate change. He made the case that he stood against Bush, that he toured the world seeing the effects of global warming and that he had a solution - which he spelled out - for what to do. Obama agreed with McCain and restated McCain's solution in his own words, to sound different, added a few canned points as an afterthought. In a time-tested method, Obama used bigger numbers (5 million new jobs with green tech, he said, vs. McCain's hundreds of thousands) to try and seem like his version of the same was shinier, better. But it was the same answer.

To be perfectly fair, the biggest score for Obama came when he brought up the "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" jingle McCain sang with a group of vet buddies (to the tune of the Beach Boys' Barbara Ann) and talked about McCain's "annihilate North Korea" comment (I can't find a direct quote). It started with a compliment to McCain, to which McCain laughed and said "Thank you," but turned on a dime into a direct attack. Obama knew he had the Arizonan by the short ones, McCain knew it and probably anyone who reads an editorial by a center/center-left writer knows it, too. The purpose is clear: McCain is hardly even-tempered or a cool hand at the tiller, but a reckless man. Will it work, or do people want a little saltiness in their commander-in-chief and President?

To ramble on about each topic would take up too much of your time. Find the transcript if you want fuller quotes. I will talk briefly about health care and what was left unsaid.

***

Health care is a huge issue, one that will be at the centerpiece of the next debate. McCain can turn opinion toward him if he drives home a broad, solid domestic agenda that touches on health care, entitlement spending and education, coupled with an economic life preserver. But last night, that first issue wasn't really handled all that well - by either.

Obama spoke about his plan, which includes you keeping your policy if you like it, going after insurance giants to lower premiums and offering a buy-in to the federal insurance package government employees get for the uninsured, though he didn't mention any of his penalties or mandates, which do exist, and how this would increase the government's participation in the process.

At his turn, McCain glossed over any tax on employers' health care plans, a key attack-point by Obama, but did stress the $5,000 deductible credit offered towards insurance, allowing people to supplement, compliment or replace their current coverage. He also talked about state insurance regulation and how he'd do away with it so insurance companies will be forced to compete across state lines, something controversial, but theoretically promising.

So what's the net gain here? Both have policies that read very well for the average income American, but each has hidden clauses, and we're left until next week (or a search on Wikipedia) to find out what they are. I wasn't satisfied with Obama's answer, because he denied what he was offering was really a massive expansion of government spending and insurance interaction, and when has increased government in our personal lives every been that good? God love him, but McCain didn't defend the tax portion of his plan, which is a new revenue stream, and why it netted out ahead for the consumer (if it did).

So that was a failing that needs to be addressed next week.

***

Where do they turn now?

According to Gallup, McCain is down 11 points (52 vs 41). Look at Rasmussen, and the situation is a little better (51 v 45) and Zogby is even rosier (47 v 45), but RCP's average has Obama up well over five points.

"Despair" is the word I use when talking to McCain supporters. Obama has a dozen days of positive polling numbers and a terrific spread for most of that. Coming back, it's climbing uphill while greased up, drunk and chained to a few ranting partisans.

McCain didn't mention William Ayres, unrepentant radical/domestic terrorist, radical Rev. Jeremiah Wright or Tony Rezko, the unholy trinity in Obama's past. If he is sincere about winning, he has to swallow his ethical objections and start telling America that not only is Obama inexperienced, he has past associations (not including the Fannie Mae tie) that should preclude him from the Oval Office, dangerous associations with people whose views are not only out-of-step with "middle America," but even most liberals.

Sarah Palin has been going after the Obama-Ayers connection, and the media is slowly picking up on it. Watch this topic.

Comfortably in the lead, at least a few points outside the margin of error in polls, Obama needs to play defense and limit his negativity. Barring any "October surprise" regarding terrorism (or massive, Republican-backed economic recovery), Obama can rest easily knowing that he doesn't have anything to do him active damage beyond his control. Bringing up the Keating Five scandal won't help him, because McCain has been relatively forthwith about it. With the proper ad campaign, tailored to link Bush and McCain even more, while stressing his economic plan, the odds are stacked for him to walk away with a bigger victory than Bush in 2004.

***

Next Wednesday is the final debate, another standard podium affair. It'll cover domestic issues and the economy, so look for fireworks and hard proposals.

I'll be back before then if there's a reason.

By the by, if anyone out there wants to write "The Case for Obama," let me know. I'd like a last-week binge of opinion, including pieces pro-Obama as well as McCain.

-Hooper

Read on, faithful few!

TPH: The Most Gracious and Engaging VP Debate

The Political Hoedown
VP Debate/Smackdown

Last Thursday night's Vice-Presidential Debate between Sen. Joe Biden and Gov. Sarah Palin was nothing short of historic, and at the least, entertaining. Much like with the first Presidential debate, there's an argument over who one or if you could say either did. As with that debate, where the tie is given to the rookie, so must it be here. Sarah Palin did not stumble over herself, contradict basic sentence structure or blow-up; her performance, judged impartially, was very good. Point to her.

But let's examine the meat-and-potatoes of what is the only contest between these two engaging opponents before getting into the whys and wherefores of Palin's "victory."


***

Last time we met about a debate, I looked at each candidate separately. That won't be the case today. These two played off each other in a congenial, yet sparring manner that exemplified what civil debate could be. I would be remiss if separated them, especially since this is their only time together. They must be weighed side by side.

Hosted at Washington University in St. Louis, MO, by Gwen Ifill, the debate began promptly and ended on time. No surprises in format, and the blatant partisanship of the moderator, who has a book coming out called "The Breakthrough: ...and Race in the Age of Obama," wasn't an issue. She did interrupt Palin to say her time was up, forcefully, but let Biden talk over her a few minutes later when she tried the same. Granted, he was worked up and not listening to anyone, but "fair play" isn't just a phrase.

One of the first attacks levied against Palin (McCain) was the "fundamentals" line the Arizona Senator has bandied about the last few wees ("The fundamentals of our economy are strong."). The attack was rejoined by Palin and they were off, rarely letting up in intensity or personality over the next ninety minutes.

Though it sounds cynical, or demeaning, there was a palpable relief that Gov. Palin used numbers in her answers, not relying on soft economic statements by hard facts. It's a sort of criticism Bush received in years past, that Palin had fallen victim to and needed to correct. On the other side of things, Biden remained on an even keel for the most part, not rambling, as he can, into barely related armchair tangents that have stunted his ability as a campaigner the last year.

But his verbosity wasn't a handicap here, and he used his honed speaking ability to sound less like a windbag than ever, but he couldn't resist referring to himself in the third person a few times.

Palin, needed every word to count, did repeat a few. If you were playing a drinking game to the number of times she said "maverick" (6; Biden said it 9 times), you'd have had a good buzz going by the end.

Ah, but seriously.

Biden did a superior job than Obama. The ticket should be flipped, by all rights. He made a better case for linking Bush and McCain and utilizing the under-referenced Cheney (McCain and Palin are in "lock-step with Dick Cheney), even if many of the votes he criticizes McCain for, he supported. That is a big weakness with a long record, supporting the same thing as your opponents, and trying to talk around that (I/he was for it before I/he was against it). Biden isn't exactly liberal, either. He's a relatively conservative Democrat by Obama's standards, and that might be why he performed so poorly in the primaries, because he couldn't radicalize the base like Obama was able to, couldn't present a clear, defined alternative to conservative politics.

To be fair, Palin is built up as the paragon of conservativeness, but she's hardly Jerry Falwell. Interesting that she admitted, slightly grudgingly, that she supports equal civil, contractual rights for gay couples, same as Biden and Obama. More interesting, how vigorous Biden's denunciation of gay marriage was, and how he went out of his way to remind "middle America" that marriage, as defined in popular and historic opinion, is between a man and a woman. I'd be surprised if the SanFran Dem set was happy with such a response. To Palin again, her "conservative" credentials are clear, but she's hardly the arch-conservative the media has painted her to be. I think the same-sex answer, and her reluctance to admit that she sympathizes more than Redneck Joe Six-pack with the plight of gays and lesbians, underscores progressive thinking. Not entirely, no no no, but to a degree.

And speaking of Joe Six-pack, she sure did her level-best to link herself to middle America, rightly so. She is relatable, with a story that mirrors many families', and her "Aw shucks" demeanor, so much a detriment in urban and East Coast districts, rings a little true out beyond the city limits. Is that who we want as Number 2 in the White House? Debatable, but she isn't fighting alone to be seen as the middle-class candidate.

Biden schmalzed around too, lots of small town Pennsylvania lines, lots of Scranton and calling his sons "champ." He claimed he hangs around Home Depot a lot (you're kidding, right?) and often talks issues at the "local gas station." His community in Delaware, he claims, is also small-town, middle class America and we should know he still lives among the grunts and peons and laborers, etc...though it's safe to say his secluded home at the end of a long-drive, replete with pool, few neighbors and miles of road before he approaches the sprawl of Wilmington isn't exactly "roughing it."

In a shock to me, Biden's weaknesses were in appearing older than McCain and not offering a defense of his anti-Obama statements (and ideas) from the primaries ("He's not ready to be commander-in-chief."). I don't want to spend a lot of time on appearance, but he didn't always look good. There were throbbing veings at his temples when Palin really riled him up, his eyes took on that small, glassy stare of the elderly and his voice! This isn't a weak-voiced man, but too often it faded to a husky fraction of what it could be. Remember, he is the guy who had brain aneurysms in the early 90s - a far more difficult thing to actively survive than skin cancer.

More damning than any health perception could be was his refusal to address his barbs against Obama spoken during late 2007 and early 2008, essentially saying he was wildly inexperienced and not ready to lead, domestically or militarily. It almost seems like Biden has sacrificed many of his positions to accommodate himself to Obama's worldview, a point Palin bitingly made (and again, went unanswered). Further aggravating the ticket, Biden pointed out the sort of role he'd play as VP.

In pretty bald terms, Biden's opinion of his role as Obama's VP was as point-man for legislation, in on all decisions and a partner in executive matters. He uses kinder, gentler wording, but it's the same post as Cheney holds now: the voice behind the throne, the puppet master. The one who has the knowledge to make the decisions and the experience and contacts to get the policies pushed through. It was a stunning attack on Obama, that his running mate so vocally stated he wasn't able to make decisions, to promote policy or effectively govern without him. How this hasn't gotten more play is beyond me, as it is a repudiation of Obama and Biden and the Democratic Party's stance against Cheney and his abuse of power.

VP as an advisory position is also great, and it's that role that Biden will take - possibly more so than any other VP since, well...Cheney. Admit he has more experience than Barack and is needed to help with complicated issues.

It was his bold wording, not his intent, that I thought alarming for Obama's credibility as a leader. Because in the end, the President has to stand alone when he goes to the country and says, "We need to do this, and it might sting a little."

Don't think I'll spare the rod when it comes to Palin (minds out of gutters). She has no capacity to dovetail thoughts. When moving from one topic to another, she shifted without a clutch and it showed in awkward wording and delivery. No more was this more apparent than when trying to defend the "finger-pointing backwards" of Biden, when the Senator repeatedly tried to tie McCain to every Bush/bad decision in the last eight years.

A suggestion I'd have for her: go to a few catch-all news websites to read stories of the day so you can merge breaking stories with canned and studied responses. You can read editorials written by your supporters that offer those segues you need between telling Biden he's wrong to look back and confirming that McCain has broken with Bush on key points and will break further with over the next four years. Her vulnerability is in her very small town-ness that defines her to so many, a narrow worldview that hinders broad discussion of the spectrum of issues.

Energy was her bailiwick Thursday, foreign policy more Biden's. But both have a clear and firm grasp on their strong suits. An argument could be made that Obama is a domestic policy generalist and a foreign policy absentee voter - he has lots of plans for the former without much more than rhetoric on the latter. Biden focuses foreign policy to real terms, nailing responses sure to please a lot of average households. Palin, understanding McCain's aversion to energy and "down home" politics in favor of foreign and military policy, unleashed a salvo of pro-energy answers that, while not always related to the question, boldly underlined her credentials where gas, heating oil and dollars headed abroad are concerned.

She slammed the media, looked a little annoyed and spoke wearily at times (We've been here before, Joe...) but never lost that spark.

Joe Biden channeled Ed Asner a few times, coming off temperamental at times, especially when he laid into the "maverick" status McCain touts.

One final bit on Biden, and this is more commentary: in talking about opinions he's changed his mind about, he addressed judicial appointees. His answer might be the most dangerous thing said this election. He advocated political ideology as a determinant of a judge's worth on the bench, not their interpretation of the Constitution, not their scholarly past or prior cases. This is, in essence, a clear desire on Biden's (and Obama's) part to stack the Supreme Court with justices who will legislate from the bench, talking away Congress' power - with no oversight - and remanding their true judicial authority to the back-burner.

From an e-mail to some friends:

It would be enlightening, someday, to read and see the prep notes both had for the debate, and to see what they were jotting away about during their opponent's turn. How much did each have prepared going in, by the way of "canned" answers? We know, in the first debate, that Obama had more than McCain, but that was in his favor, keeping a clearer message and not getting caught in the morass of his own inexperience. Certainly Palin had more pre-written, or memorized, lines about certain topics and a strategy to bring things back to her strengths - middle class, energy, reform.

By any measure this debate was a referendum on Palin, her ability to think on her feet, frame original responses - all candidates have cobbled some answers from stump speeches and none of the four this year are any different - around core principles and policy. She knows energy better than Biden, but that comes from her experience in the sector. He knows constitutional law. Yes, he has more experience than she does; by being alive some two decades more, I'd hope so. But it wasn't a negative for her, as she got him to mumble responses, fall back on stump positions and admit that the two of them see eye to eye on a lot of issues.

Their back-and-forths were far more revealing about either candidate than expected, showing progressivism on both sides, as well as a tendency towards conservatism. Biden is no bleeding-heart liberal, like Obama. Palin might not like gay "marriage" but when it comes to civil contracts, her state supports them for all couples, as does she.

I thought it was a terrific debate, perhaps showing us the real ticket this year should be the bi-partisan Biden/Palin. Similar stances, similar backgrounds, middle-class, family-oriented, not high-falluting intellectuals but still crisp on the issues and policies. It would have been the perfect Progressive ticket.

No serious gaffes, a few pronunciation errors on both parts, some padding of records and distorting of opponents - in all, a better, cleaner debate than last Friday's.

Joe Biden and Sarah Palin were, despite the hostile waters they navigated, friendly to the last, getting their whole families on stage in a big group hug. It was heartening to see, and made me wonder what a Biden/Palin ticket would be like. These two really did agree on a number of issues throughout the night and but their principles to shame when it came to cordiality.

***

The next debate is tomorrow, a town hall style Q & A that promises...what? Quick wit? Gotcha questions? That sledgehammer moment when one candidate verbally slaps the other into place?

I look for honesty in the answers, and decency when at all possible. The mud that each candidate is slogging through doesn't look pretty on them, nor do I like to be slathered with it when they pontificate and gesticulate madly about the other running a negative campaign. I hope that tomorrow brings some uplift, some positive rejoinders.

They damn well better learn a lesson from Joe and Sarah Middle-America, that you can disagree without losing your humanity.

-Hooper

Read on, faithful few!

TPH Op-Ed: Dining with Doubt

The following is a piece by Matthew H. Griffin about local politics in suburban Chicago. It also touches on voters' economic uncertainty and the desire to be reassured, or at least talked to like adults. Enjoy.

-The Management

For reasons still unknown to me, I found myself invited to a campaign dinner in a posh home in Hinsdale. It was a hard decision: dance class or political dinner.

I can see and feel change I like at one of those places, but I steeled myself and my resolve to hear if IL-13 opposition candidate Scott Harper (D) had anything productive to add to the dialogue about the economy. It sticks in my craw that my one and only financial instrument is worth 70% of what I paid for it.

With Senator Obama's choice to frame the crisis in bleakly populist terms like "When will Wall Street get that the crisis has already hit Main Street?", I have increasingly been dismayed by the lack of gumption our progressive politicians have demonstrated when speaking on this crisis. We're quick to solutions like a $700 billion bailout but slow on providing context for this crisis.

Upon hearing the news that I was going to a tony reception, a friend who has a son involved in the campaign business exclaimed, "My son has been to tons of those in New York, and he says that we have more erudite conversation around the dinner table." High dissatisfaction coupled with low expectations is not a very promising situation. I am reminded of the young dancers playing – well - young people in David Dorfman's Underground pumping their fists in the air chanting, "We're apathetic!"

At the party, I found that I was surrounded by deliciously informed voters. One voter knew the roll-call of Northeast Illinois' Congressional delegation on today's failed financial bailout. Another voter explained the credit crisis to me in great detail. I told this man that I expected our elected officials to be able to articulate the roots of the crisis, to which he responded that most people do not follow the crisis in as much depth as he does. I conceded this pointed and countered that it's important that elected officials have really sharp staff!

He sighed and said, "Ah well, it's the American 'S' factor."

"'S' factor?" I said.

"S for stupid," said he. "No one would understand the explanation. What did Churchill say, 'Five minutes with any voter is enough to discourage any politician!'"

Five minutes with this informed voter was very heartening to me, but would I be able to say the same after hearing Harper speak? After Harper did speak, a high school pal's father listened to me pining for specifics. He reminded me, "Politicians aren't anybody's friend."

To Mr. Harper's credit, he respectfully took his potential constituents' questions with an openness of spirit. I was reminded of a teacher who said that the Dali Lama is always smiling. We're dealing with big amounts of money here and serious issues and we are looking for the candidate who makes the well-timed joke that gets to the heart of the matter. It's the better person who does. "Will she debate you?" asked a local politician referring to Scott's incumbent opponent Judy Biggert (R).

"We'll make something of it if she does not," replied Harper with a smile.

-Matthew H. Griffin

Read on, faithful few!