Strange days have found us, and mine was a whizzer. I had the day off because I got all my grades done for the first marking period and today was a teacher's workday. I took the car in for servicing and things got bogged down with a pair of tires they didn't have in stock so I was stuck for five hours in a very nice Mini Cooper showroom with cable news and a copy of Esquire magazine.
Esquire has endorsements for every congressional race in this issue, along with their choice for president. There were some fascinating picks, and they ripped Joe Lieberman a new orifice. Then they tore Michele Bachmann into tiny little bits. And shamed John McCain beyond repair.
I also had a few very interesting conversations with strangers over MSNBC's afternoon coverage.
Then I got home and found the new Entertainment Weekly in my mailbox, and Stephen King has figured out the reason why Barack is winning. He also freaking LOVES Rachel Maddow.
Let's start with the Esquire endorsements. I was impressed that they listed Michele Bachmann as the 2nd Worst candidate in the United States, even before the McCain campaign rhetoric riled her into her infamous meltdown. Check this out.
The competition was staggering, and for every one on this list, there are five who could have just as easily have stood in. Ladies and gentlemen, the very worst of the worst.
Here's their final four as printed in the magazine. The web link has a different order, but this is what I saw while I waited for the car to get fixed.
- Senator Saxby Chambliss, (R) Georgia
- Representative Michele Bachmann (R) Minnesota
- Senator John Cornyn (R) Texas
- Senator Joe Lieberman (I) Conneticut
The two we talk about most around here? This is the view from Esquire.
Inherent in politics is the fact that someone always loses. Some lose gracefully, some lose poorly, and, as in the case of Joe Lieberman, some lose their minds. Since being defeated by an anti-war candidate in 2006, Leiberman has pursued his campaign of revenge against his former party, thinly disguised as an act of principle, replete with the quavering sanctimony that no country should have to put up with from anyone, much less from this small man.
God, I love good writers.
One gets the impression that if, in the name of "traditional values", Bachmann could rescind the vote for women, she would. Her vacant, wild eyes recall a doomsday prophet, or one of Charles Manson's girls. Equal parts religious hack and party hack, she's got spunk and not much else.
I love good writers a lot.
In my neck of the woods, Esquire endorsed both Joe Garcia and Raul Martinez, but decided that Annette Taddeo "does little to distinguish herself from the incumbent on local issues. Better challenger next time please."
Oh well, two out of three ain't bad.
Esquire thinks that Barack Obama has been "dithering" around the real change we need. (Personally, I would rather him win first and jail Bush later.) Then they realize how bad his opponent is.
His Republican counterpart is the first presidential candidate in history to run as a parody of himself. John McCain has decided on a cheap and dishonorable campaign...
... he has become a mockery of everything he once purported to be.
It's the November issue of Esquire, and it was a great way to spend an afternoon.
I was watching MSNBC when the fake carving story hit, and three different people spontaneously agreed that McCain must have "paid her to do that".
One of them made some un-gripping hand gestures later when McCain was speaking, and said in a heavy island accent: "Let it go, McCain. Let it go."
And then I got home to the Entertainment Weekly. Besides the Diablo Cody column, Stephen King's pop culture ramblings are my favorite. Today he went all presidential election on us.
The most popular soap opera of 2008 has been the presidential campaign. Those of us who've become addicted to it (I am one, although I say it with no pride) have had a chance to savor every quip, gaffe, and tear. We've listened to thousands of pundits and 10,000 sound bites. If words were weasels, we all would've been bitten to death.
Yes, Stephen King writes a column in Entertainment Weekly. And yes, he loves Rachel like we do.
The pundits are no better than they were 48 years ago; with the exception of the delightful (and insightful) Rachel Maddow, they are the same gang of tiresome jabber-jaws. But the images are better - now we can watch John McCain's cheek sag and Barack Obama's ears protrude in HD - and the audience is far more sophisticated. They see more, some of it is good, some bad, much beyond the candidate's control.
That is why Stephen King says John McCain is losing. Because the television exposes him so awkwardly.
How powerful is TV? Listen to this. The morning after the last debate, I rode downstairs in a hotel elevator with a Mr. Businessman type. I asked him if he'd seen the candidates go at it. He said he had. I asked him who, in his opinion, had won. "Obama," he said. "McCain can't win, at least not on TV. He just looks wrong."
Just. Looks. Wrong. Truer words were never spoken in this campaign. Unless it is the crocodile smile. Nina has called McCain "Crocodile Smile" since the lime green background speech. Stephen King confirms her perception!
The biggest contrast that TV rams home isn't the candidates' different skin colors; it's that one has an intuitive grasp of TV's elemental power and the other does not. McCain grimaces, fidgets, and flashes frequent grins of reptilian unpleasantness.
Wow. What a day.