nancynall.com » Still reeling.

Still reeling.

JohnC drops in with a writ­ing les­son. The lede from the Freep’s main­bar on the Kil­patrick story:

Shortly after Mayor Kwame Kil­patrick wakes up in jail this morn­ing — still reel­ing from becom­ing the first sit­ting mayor in Detroit’s 307-year his­tory to spend a night behind bars — Michi­gan Attor­ney Gen­eral Mike Cox is expected to charge him with felony assault.

John points out that when a story is this dra­matic, you don’t have to over­write it: Just let the facts speak for them­selves. And while this isn’t a ter­ri­bly turgid pas­sage — you have to go to TV for that stuff — there’s just a hint of it there:

I’m talk­ing about the phrase “still reel­ing from.” Not to take any­thing away from those guys, who’ve done a fan­tas­tic job on that story. Never mind the fact that the reporters have no idea whether the mayor will be “reel­ing,” one of my pet peeves is over-writing a story that pretty much tells itself. Take that phrase out, and you have a much, much stronger top.

Yes, I agree. If ever there was a case for let­ting the facts speak for them­selves, it’s this. I was pleased to see my friend Ron French’s byline (one of three) on the News’ con­tri­bu­tion. Ron’s hall­mark as a writer is a keen eye for the ironic detail. Let’s see if we can find it here:

Kwame Kilpatrick’s lips quiv­ered. He sat in silence, his hand pressed to his face, as 36th Dis­trict Judge Ronald Giles cut another string of the thread by which a once-promising polit­i­cal career hung. “If it was not Kwame Kil­patrick sit­ting in that seat, if it was John Six-Pack sit­ting in the seat, what would I do?” Giles asked the mayor. Bond is revoked, Giles said. Then, the man who already was the first sit­ting mayor in Detroit’s 307-year his­tory to be charged with a crime became the first to be locked in a jail cell in his own city.

Bingo!

It’s hard to teach this stuff. You have to have the eye and the ear and the per­spec­tive to know when the facts need no addi­tional under­lin­ing. A very good reporter I once knew was strug­gling with a story about a nursing-home com­pany in Chap­ter 11, while its owner lived like a pasha. He asked a col­league, also a good reporter but a very skilled writer, to take a shot. The sec­ond writer exam­ined the facts for a few moments and came up with some­thing like this:

As the XXXX chain of nurs­ing homes slid closer to bank­ruptcy, owner XXXX knew he had to do some­thing to stop the bleed­ing. He cut staff. He trimmed ser­vices. He low­ered ther­mostats and cur­tailed extras. But he didn’t give up his pri­vate com­pany plane, owned by the cor­po­ra­tion but used exclu­sively by XXXX and his fam­ily. Nor did he sell the com­pany retreat, which served as XXXX’s sum­mer home. Nor did he…

It was a thing of beauty. In a just world, Mr. Mon­ey­bags would have shit his pants and died when he saw it. As it was, he prob­a­bly just lit a cigar with a $20 bill and thought, “Good thing this rag won’t be around to bug me in a few more years.”

That con­cludes today’s writ­ing les­son.

JohnC gets the Freep home-delivered; we get the News. Both were a lit­tle, eh, excited today. BEHIND BARS, the News’ front page shrieked, in a font size suit­able for a stadium’s Jum­botron. I’ve rumi­nated here how the tra­di­tions of print jour­nal­ism are being adapted by dig­i­tal media, mostly in the widely imi­tated, rat-a-tat-tat phras­ing of Drudge, who ripped it off from Wal­ter Winchell and oth­ers from the golden age of print. Amus­ingly enough, you see this most often in gos­sip columns: “Brit­ney Spears and Justin Tim­ber­lake are back together! The for­mer flames will record a duet for her new album, OK! can exclu­sively reveal…” But noth­ing will replace the scream­ing head­line. Espe­cially not Drudge’s ambu­lance light, or what­ever that thing is.

OK, some­thing will replace it. But we don’t know what it is yet. This seems as good a time as any to reveal that I’m now in a new digi-media space. Among the casu­al­ties of Saturday’s kayak trip was my old pink Razr cell phone, which dis­ap­peared some­time between 5 p.m. and 6:10 p.m., dur­ing which time I was out on the water. I have no mem­ory of it going plop into the drink. In my last mem­ory of it, it was sit­ting on the dock, which sug­gests it was either stolen, eaten by a duck or kicked down the boat ramp, but it doesn’t mat­ter now because it is gone, gone, gone.

That was bad news. Until it turned into good news:

Alan accused me of los­ing my old phone on pur­pose. I did not. But that is my new iPhone 3G, it has a near-broadband con­nec­tion and web browser, and I’ve been spend­ing some time read­ing news on its index-card screen. I have news for all of you jour­nal­ists: This is a game-changer. I’m try­ing to see where it leads me, not impose my habits upon it, and so far, it’s telling me that break­ing news is going to be cell-phone news in the future. They’ll clip “still reel­ing” from ledes for space rea­sons, not for the eso­teric ones dis­cussed above.

Busy day today, so on to the blog­gage:

Coo­zledad on his dual roost­ers, Sid and Nancy. See what a good writer can do with both white and dark meat.

Jim at Sweet Juniper goes shop­ping in Ann Arbor. Finds some toys, but not for the kids.

Every Thurs­day night, as I reach the end of my edit­ing shift, I check to see what TBogg’s bas­sets are up to. Satchmo is sick (sad story), but Fen­way, that iras­ci­ble pup, is on the roof. Funny story. Reminds me of when Spriggy dis­cov­ered he could climb onto the din­ing room table.

Roy, in a con­tem­pla­tive mood.

And me, outta here.

34 responses to
“Still reeling.”

  1. beb said on August 8th, 2008 at 12:34 pm

    I wasn’t think­ing of weak jounal­ism but when I saw this arti­cle ear­lier today, linked in the Freep’s front page as Odd News I knew I had to offer it up to you.

    http://​hosted​.ap​.org/​d​y​n​a​m​i​c​/​s​t​o​r​i​e​s​/​O​/​O​D​D​_​U​R​I​N​E​_​D​I​S​P​O​S​A​L​?​S​I​T​E​=​M​I​D​T​F​&​a​m​p​;​S​E​C​T​I​O​N​=​H​O​M​E​&​a​m​p​;​T​E​M​P​L​A​T​E​=​D​EFAULT

    The prob­lem with this story is that I this story a cou­ple years ago. That stretch of high­way in Ore­gon has long had a his­tory of dri­vers throw­ing their “pee bombs” out their win­dows. It’s hard to imag­ine that its got­ten sig­nif­i­cantly worse.

    Then we learn that dri­vers travel “very slowly” through the area. Well, it is a hill, which prob­a­bly a long steep grade, but why would truck­ers be any more likely to throw out a pee bomb there than any­where else? I mean wouldn’t it be fubn watch­ing the bot­tle explode on impact while trav­el­ing at high speed?

    Then there’s a police’s com­ment that truck­ers are prob­a­bly dri­ving past truck stops because they are trav­el­ing so slowly. Um, trucker’s often are paid by the mile. They don’t get paid for potty breaks. That’s way there have been pee bombs in this area for years now. Truck­ers prob­a­bly are slowly down, from 70 to 55 because the fuel sav­ing is too good not to. If they are paid $1 a mile, which I doubt, slow­ing down costs them $15 but if it saves four gal­lons of diesel, they come out ahead.

    In con­clu­sion, if these dri­vers are going in pop bot­tles, as the orig­i­nal story I read sug­gested, they must have pretty tiny units.

  2. coozledad said on August 8th, 2008 at 12:38 pm

    That one’s for you, Nancy.
    I’ve got to make posters for a voter reg­is­tra­tion drive tomor­row at Mir­a­cle Bar­ber Shop at 612 West Main St. in Rox­boro. I feel like I did when I was paint­ing a back­drop for a Christ­mas pageant in ele­men­tary school.
    If these guys shave heads, I might be a dif­fer­ent man tomor­row after­noon.

  3. beb said on August 8th, 2008 at 12:46 pm

    Jim’s tale of try­ing to be a bet­ter par­ent at Sweet Juniper sounds so like me in that time between hear­ing those words “I’m preg­nant” and our daughter’s first squall. Every­thing after that becomes one com­pro­mise after another away from our early golden ideals. I’m plan not to spank our child has given way to dreams of throt­tling the insuf­fer­able brat, but then nei­ther of s were very good chil­dren so why should we expect our child to be any dif­fer­ent or bet­ter?

  4. jcburns

    jcburns said on August 8th, 2008 at 12:49 pm

    Oooh….nice phone.

    I’m now try­ing to imag­ine in what uni­verse a duck, coot, or mer­ganser would wad­dle up to a pink Razr and gulp it down.

  5. LAMary said on August 8th, 2008 at 1:05 pm

    Maybe Detroit ducks are like Detroit squir­rels.

  6. nancy said on August 8th, 2008 at 1:08 pm

    If the duck was a scrap­per, it’d find a way.

  7. LAMary said on August 8th, 2008 at 2:16 pm

    Off topic…
    Here’s an arti­cle about the Bei­jing Olympics. The best part is the slide show of the pyrotech­nics. Amaz­ing.

    http://​www​.msnbc​.msn​.com/​i​d​/​2​6​0​79138/

  8. caliban said on August 8th, 2008 at 2:38 pm

    I had a les­son in jour­nal­is­tic restraint when a great JSchool pro­fes­sor named Char­lie Kopp told a newswrit­ing class I could always be counted upon to be col­or­ful. I was suit­ably abashed, I guess, but I also sensed appro­ba­tion from some­body I admired. To this day, I still believe in writ­ing sim­ple as a pre­cept, but one to be smashed to bits, because, writ­ers, like girls, just want to have fun, and because we can.

    In the par­tic­u­lar instance, my argu­ment with ‘reel­ing’ would con­cern accu­racy. While a reel­ing Kwame would be a thing to reckon with, I doubt he reels except after a few fifths of Cristal at the Love Shack (some­where around 13th and Indian­dale). ‘Seething’ was prob­a­bly more like it, a ‘churn­ing urn of burn­ing funk’, and I’ll bet ‘homi­ci­dally enraged’ wouldn’t have been entirely innacu­rate. All in all, had edi­tors allowed the reporter to describe Mayor Kil­patrick as ‘supremely pissed off and look­ing for revenge with mur­der in his heart for the police’, jour­nal­is­tic objec­tiv­ity, accu­racy, and read­ers would have been well served.

    Detroit pol­i­tics has always been down and dirty, and Chicago lays claim to rough­house, but y’all are pik­ers. Mayor Cur­ley ran Boston from inside, when he was away. Will Dee-troit step up. Don’t free Kwame. (Why is it that you can’t find an inter­ested Amer­i­can that won’t claim her own homies pro­duce the most despi­ca­ble, crooked politi­cians?)

  9. SusanG said on August 8th, 2008 at 3:57 pm

    You’ve no idea how much you’re going to love your new iPhone, Nancy. Good choice.

  10. Eric said on August 8th, 2008 at 4:45 pm

    I think the freep writ­ers met Nancy’s stan­dard here with this line about the mayor:
    “His shim­mer­ing gray suit, match­ing vest and French-cuff shirt with “Mayor” embroi­dered on the sleeves were replaced with a jail-issued jump­suit.”

    Luck­ily, proper eti­quette allows elected offi­cials to retain their hon­orifics after they’ve left office. So no mat­ter what the out­come for Mayor Kil­patrick, he won’t have to buy new shirts.

  11. brian stouder said on August 8th, 2008 at 4:51 pm

    You’ve no idea how much you’re going to love your new iPhone

    Judg­ing from the great pic­ture, wherein the smile on the Pro­pri­etress is more lit up than the i-phone, I think this is true!

    And some duck is now the envy of all the oth­ers, with her snappy ring­tones and funny glow (at least ’til the bat­tery gives out)

    and then there’s this ancient story -

    http://​www​.msnbc​.msn​.com/​i​d​/​2​6​0​95810/

    So John Edwards’ new song might be I Shot the Sher­iff, only with the lyrics mod­i­fied to “I betrayed Eliz­a­beth; But I didn’t knock up Rielle, too.” (I guess I’m an old guy, but how is “and I don’t love her” any sort of DEFENSE? To me, that makes him a heel all the more…!)

  12. caliban said on August 8th, 2008 at 6:01 pm

    He is still the mayor, right? Some­body wal­low­ing in the same trough got him into trou­ble in the first place. The idea of the jacket embla­zoned with the polit­i­cal hon­orific puts me in mind of Joe Ely, a great (if that’s not over­reach­ing dic­tion) Texas singer, song­writer and guitar-slinger. Joe’s got a Nudie suit we’ve seen him per­form in with kingsnakes embroi­dered on the lapels. (Red touch yel­low, and etc.)

    I’m all for reporters just stat­ing the facts. W lied his ass off and fab­ri­cated evi­dence. Dick Cheney would kick the Constitution’s ass beyond the Magna Carta. Nobody wants to just admit to facts. Read that sti­fled hys­ter­i­cal school­marm Howard Kurtz, who reg­u­larly equates legit­i­mate crit­i­cism with out­right lies and rounds them up under the ban­ner of ‘going neg­a­tive.

    Peo­ple like that with good jobs on papers of record said that point­ing out lies and deal­ing with facts about W’s lack of ser­vice (well, tech­ni­cally, it was actu­ally deser­tion) was some­how the same thing as some Nixon psy­cho­phant mak­ing up alter­na­tive real­ity about Kerry’s ser­vice in both Viet­Nam and across a cou­ple of bor­ders. These things aren’t com­men­su­rate.

    It seems the basic prob­lem is the inabil­ity of Amer­i­cans to con­front real­ity, read Eng­lish, sep­a­rate truth from bull­shit, con­sider the wel­fare of oth­ers, sniff out liars, act like the Chris­tians they claim to be in over­whelm­ing num­bers, think, I guess.

    And there’s the rub. Words are code agreed upon, and pic­tures are eas­ily manip­u­lated code. In my opin­ion, the descrip­tion of Kwame Kilpatrick’s cloth­ing was fairly obvi­ously try­ing to por­tray him as Shug.

    You can fall all over your­selves insist­ing that the Skinny Guy, phal­lic sym­bol, Brit­tany, phal­lic sym­bol, Paris ad coc­n­tained no racial intent. Same guy made that ad made the Ten­nessee ad about the Play­boy Man­sion and ‘Call me Harold’. They’re com­ing for our women.

    My com­pan­ion says they may be com­ing for her, and while those black bucks are allur­ing, I’m still OK.

    A lot to con­sider. Who changes your copy and should any­body, ever? No.

    who writes the mis­lead­ing heads? Nobody’s going to admit to it. Every paper in the world had heads insist­ing that the ‘ter­riss’ Ham­dan was found guilty. No he wasn’t. Before he took the hor­ri­ble tour and was sub­jected to tor­ture, the Yemeni guy with a grade-school edu­ca­tion said he took a job dri­ving Osama, to pay his bills. He was con­victed of dri­ving not ms. Daisy but it might as well have been. Let’s get Ken­ny­Boy Lay’s dri­ver to Gitmo. And these ass­holes will insist on keep­ing this guy for­ever like he’s dan­ger­ous, instead of just like every poor bas­tard try­ing to find a job because the moron fried the econ­omy.

    So if you are ndeed irony-proof, and not inquis­i­tive at all, I guess you’re a Lucky Man. Peo­ple make fun of jack­asses like you. You know, that’s how things stand. Nobody talks about Keat­ing 5, but I guess if you lan­guished, you must be telling the truth. Way I see it, drop­ping bombs from about a mile and get­ting shot down seems either incom­pe­tent or detached.

    How about this? I didn’t know McCain but I heard he was an igno­rant cow­boy with eyes on the prize. He made up those pur­ple hearts. No wait, he didn’t have any. But he must be a hero because he was a POW. Kerry actu­ally saved guys he cared about from being hurt or cap­tured. So, what are these idiots car­ry­ing over to some old white-haired fool that never had any­thing to do with Viet­Nam but killing civil­ians at the safe remove of sev­eral thou­sand feet? And he was such a fuck­ing maroon he got shot down.

    Holy shit, he went through hell. In the first place, the Bush eter­nal cam­paign­ers den­i­grated this argu­ment, and they’re right. Being a POW doesn’t make you either a war hero or a leader. NFW.

    Tell you what. Let’s bring up the W anti-McCain ads from SC. Seems fair, since this ahole is W incar­nate. Bring those on. Actu­ally, bith these idiots ckaim tp have seen ser­vice. This goes back and wy back. These two nitwits dis­hon­ored vets. Seems to be a Repub­li­can thing. Kerry wasn’t a hero. Kiss Nixon on the cheek good­night and remem­ber, there ws Eliot Richard­son, who just was not buy­ing the moral turpi­tude. Those were crooks. These ass­holes tried to destroy the Con­sti­tu­tion.

    They ought to fry.

  13. caliban said on August 8th, 2008 at 6:15 pm

    This busi­ness about Ham­dan found guilty is revolt­ing. He was found guilty of being the dri­ver. He admit­ted to that a long time ago. He took the job to pro­vide for a wife and a kid. The guy has been glo­be­trot­ted and any­body pur­port­ing to be Amer­i­can is a war crim­i­nal with a hand in slic­ing and dic­ing and ter­ror­iz­ing peo­ple that had no closer con­nec­tion to terr than that they had Ara­bic names. That’s a fact.

  14. basset said on August 8th, 2008 at 9:38 pm

    Cal­iban… shut the (exple­tive deleted) up, at least until you have some­thing coher­ent to say.

    Our bas­set, Eudora, lived to be almost sev­en­teen. We got her when we lived in Mis­sis­sippi, and every now and again we’d run across some local who was gen­uinely offended that we had named a dog after one of their cul­tural trea­sures. Which we hadn’t, but in Mis­sis­sippi that doesn’t mat­ter, par­tic­u­larly if you’re a Yan­kee.

  15. brian stouder said on August 8th, 2008 at 10:04 pm

    Bas­set – Eudora Welty? I sup­pose you could have called him Dale or Petty or Awe­some Bill…or some other latter-day cul­tural hero! My brother named a dog Day­tona; if I was going to name a dog after a rac­ing venue, maybe Hock­en­heim or Spa Fran­cor­champs…

    As for c-ban – at this time of year the say­ing in Indi­ana is that if you sit still enough and lis­ten closely enough near a corn­field, you can hear it growing….and sim­i­larly, if c-ban lis­tens closely enough, he might just hear the creak­ing of the Big Cul­tural Gears begin­ning to turn again.

    The Democ­rats are unde­ni­ably in the ascen­dant just now, and the decade (give or take) of right­eous indig­na­tion at Repub­li­can Estab­lish­ment hyp­ocrites and fak­ers and liars is slid­ing between the gears, and the notion that all (or even most) pub­lic virtue and hon­esty resides with the Democ­rats is inevitably going to get pulled in there, too, and ground into dust, right before our eyes

  16. basset said on August 8th, 2008 at 10:41 pm

    I hon­estly don’t remem­ber where the name came from… we were liv­ing in Jack­son, Miss., and got her from a breeder in Michi­gan. Richard Petty was just about to get his last win, and I was mainly a Lake Speed fan.

    ran across some­one down there who claimed to actu­ally know Eudora Welty and said she would have found it funny. the only time I ever saw her in per­son was in the Jack­son air­port, closely guarded by some artsy young woman who was deter­mined to make sure that none of the com­mon­ers invaded their cul­tural treasure’s per­sonal space, to the point of glar­ing at any­one she caught look­ing too closely. or at all.

    if I was gonna name a hound dog after a race track, the name would be Elnora. first place I ever saw a race, UMRA three-quarter midgets in the late Six­ties, back when they used to run Crosley engines.

  17. caliban said on August 8th, 2008 at 11:05 pm

    I was think­ing about the term ‘reel­ing’. Lo and behold, we have Steely Dan, a song so great it needs no intro­duc­tion.
    these guys paid some lit­er­ary ante up.

    Now if any­obdy wrote bet­ter lyrics:

    I remem­ber the thirty-five sweet good­byes
    When you put me on the Wolver­ine
    Up to Annan­dale
    It was still Sep­tem­ber
    When your daddy was quite sur­prised
    To find you with the work­ing girls
    In the county jail
    I was smok­ing with the boys upstairs
    When I heard about the whole affair
    I said oh no
    William and Mary won’t do

    Well, yeah lot’s of peo­ple did. Sue me. Still pretty excel­lent. I assume she’s got legs. W & M is sort of below our social class., and if Lib­erty is what we aspire to for law school, we’ve been hoist by our own petard.

    It’s an inter­est­ing ques­tion, whose bitch are you? Obvi­ous answer. Not one you meant to antag­o­nize. Who brought up this odi­ous sub­ject? Old white-haired dude that seri­ously looks like the crypt-keeper. No other way ou could cut it, He should have shut the hell up.

    All of this is mind-bogglnmg. Paris Hilton is smarter and reads a teleprompter so much bet­ter than McCain, he comes across like Bar­ney Fife on meth. And on energy, McCain’s cam­paign says, what she said. That is what they said, right?

  18. Deborah said on August 9th, 2008 at 10:36 am

    Speak­ing of hyp­ocrits Brian, what about Edwards? I hate, hate, hate giv­ing right wingers fod­der but this Edwards thing is really depress­ing. He did a really stu­pid thing of course, but what kind of woman would sleep with a guy who was mar­ried to a woman strug­gling with can­cer? That woman seems evil to me. And no, I’m not excus­ing Edwards and I have no idea what his pri­vate rela­tion­ship with his wife was like, nor should I. I just find it so sad. What is wrong with peo­ple?

  19. moe99 said on August 9th, 2008 at 12:47 pm

    Bas­set, our bas­set hound in Defi­ance was named Digby. My father could not bear to neuter him, so he grew up a wan­derer. Became a spe­cial pet of the stu­dents at Defi­ance Col­lege because he showed up there so much. He was finally adopted by a Defi­ance Col­lege stu­dent after he grad­u­ated and went to live with him. He was great.

    And, Bas­set, I think Cal­iban is right about Ham­dan. This guy’s actions did not vio­late any laws on the books at the time they were done. Plus, he’s not going to be released after his 5 and a half years up but kept indef­i­nitely as a enemy com­bat­ant. This is not the Amer­ica I grew up with. We don’t play like Soviet Rus­sia, at least we didn’t used to.
    As an attor­ney I am sick­ened by how they twisted the laws to get this result. Here’s the Amer­i­can Con­sti­tu­tion Soci­ety on it:
    http://​tinyurl​.com/​5bkjd2

  20. brian stouder said on August 9th, 2008 at 1:41 pm

    Deb­o­rah – Edwards’ elec­toral inso­lence is pre­cisely what prompted that com­ment about hypocrisy and the fleet­ing nature of polit­i­cal Right­eous Indig­na­tion.

    I was taken aback that part of his defense is “but I didn’t love her”. To me, that’s all the more off-putting.

    In my opin­ion, this cos­mopoli­tan “it was only sex” atti­tude is a myth, if not an out­right lie. When peo­ple keep going back to each other, at least one of them must feel like it is a rela­tion­ship; and if only one thinks that, then cer­tainly the other knows – and encour­ages that notion.

    I will con­fess to one bit of schaden­freude; I know a few peo­ple who were 100% pro-Edwards, and who are bit­terly anti-Obama – con­sid­er­ing him the weak­est can­di­date that the Democ­rats could have nom­i­nated, in what should be (so they say) a slam-dunk Demo­c­ra­tic year.

    Clearly THAT’S not true!! If John Edwards had won the nom­i­na­tion, the con­ven­tion would be thrown into a 1968-style death spi­ral, and the Wrin­kled Up White Haired Dude would be smil­ing like a racoon in the corn crib.

    edit -moe – in your legal read­ings, have you stud­ied the trial of the con­spir­a­tors in the Lin­coln assas­si­na­tion mil­i­tary tri­bunal? In that case, Joseph Holt was the pre­sid­ing offi­cer, and the defen­dants could have a lawyer, but were not enti­tled to one…and if they didn’t have a lawyer, then Judge Holt would act as their defense attor­ney at the same time he was pros­e­cut­ing them!

  21. moe99 said on August 9th, 2008 at 2:30 pm

    Brian–I’ve only recently come back to read­ing Amer­i­can his­tory and it has been focused on the Civil War. Do you have a book on this you can rec­om­mend?

    I under­stand Edwards cam­paign man­ager, for­mer US Rep David Bonior, is pretty pissed about Edwards. I do not fault him for that. I’d like my dona­tion back too, as I feel it was given under false pre­tenses. And don’t think that I haven’t spec­u­lated about how the ex would feel if his pec­ca­dil­los dur­ing our mar­riage came out these days, as he’s run­ning for state office.

  22. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on August 9th, 2008 at 2:32 pm

    Um, while John Edwards is help­fully absorb­ing the media frenzy quota for this week — http://​www​.amer​i​can​thinker​.com/​2​0​0​8​/​0​8​/​c​o​u​l​d​_​o​b​a​m​a​_​l​o​s​e​_​t​h​e​_​n​o​m​i​n​a​t​i​o​_​1.html

    If any­one can think of a way this sce­nario isn’t actu­ally play­ing out right in front of our eyes (with Bill doing every­thing but wink­ing at the cam­era), i’m inter­ested . . . but this out­line looks like it holds up no mat­ter which side you push on.

  23. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on August 9th, 2008 at 2:36 pm

    Oh, and at National Review Online, Byron York notes that the Edwards cov­er­age between last night and this after­noon on the web ver­sion has under­gone an intrigu­ing change:

    Cut­ting Palmieri and Hick­man Out of the Pic­ture [Byron York]

    Last night I posted part of a New York Times arti­cle on John Edwards, an excerpt that described his damage-control team:

    “When The Enquirer first reported the affair, a group of Edwards asso­ciates, includ­ing from past cam­paigns, assem­bled at his head­quar­ters to try to stop the story from mov­ing from the tabloid into major news­pa­pers. They declined to respond to ques­tions or issue any state­ments that might pro­duce news reports, accord­ing to those involved in the effort. It was led by Jen­nifer Palmieri, a long­time asso­ciate of both Mr. and Mrs. Edwards.

    But by this sum­mer, the team had shrunk. Ms. Palmieri man­aged the cri­sis again, work­ing mainly with Mr. Edwards and Har­ri­son Hick­man, Mr. Edwards’s long­time poll­ster. Ini­tially Mr. Edwards argued that he could ride out the lat­est report, but sev­eral asso­ciates said that if they were not true, he should denounce them.”

    That was last night. Look­ing at the same story today, the same pas­sage is a bit shorter — the lined parts have been cut from the Times story:

    “When The Enquirer first reported the affair, a group of Edwards asso­ciates, includ­ing from past cam­paigns, assem­bled at his head­quar­ters to try to stop the story from mov­ing from the tabloid into major news­pa­pers. They declined to respond to ques­tions or issue any state­ments that might pro­duce news reports, accord­ing to those involved in the effort. (Strike the remain­der of the text as miss­ing now, at 2 pm Sat.) It was led by Jen­nifer Palmieri, a long­time asso­ciate of both Mr. and Mrs. Edwards.

    But by this sum­mer, the team had shrunk. Ms. Palmieri man­aged the cri­sis again, work­ing mainly with Mr. Edwards and Har­ri­son Hick­man, Mr. Edwards’s long­time poll­ster. Ini­tially Mr. Edwards argued that he could ride out the lat­est report, but sev­eral asso­ciates said that if they were not true, he should denounce them.” (These last four sen­tences were all in strike-through, which i haven’t fig­ured out how to do on Nancy’s site.)

    [Now that's an inter­est­ing "whoops." - jeff]

  24. Jolene said on August 9th, 2008 at 2:39 pm

    Jeff, I don’t think those bread­crumbs lead any­where. In talk­ing w/ a small group of sup­port­ers about the pos­si­bil­ity of becom­ing the nom­i­nee after all, Hillary said, just a few days ago, “That is not going to hap­pen.” I think we should take her at her word.

  25. LA Mary said on August 9th, 2008 at 7:58 pm

    The woman in ques­tion was for­merly known as Lisa Druck and was por­trayed in Less Than Zero as a sex­ual preda­tor. This is not excus­ing John Edwards one bit, but it does answer the “what kind of woman” ques­tion.

  26. LA Mary said on August 9th, 2008 at 8:03 pm

    Correction..it wasn’t in Less Than Zero. It was in The Story of My Life and her character’s name was Alli­son Poole.

  27. brian stouder said on August 9th, 2008 at 8:51 pm

    This is not excus­ing John Edwards one bit, but it does answer the “what kind of woman” ques­tion.

    Good heav­ens! “what kind of woman”?

    Jay McIn­er­ney writes a novel that, accord­ing to Wikipedia is “nar­rated in the first-person from the point of view of Ali­son Poole, an osten­si­bly jaded, cocaine-addled, sex­u­ally vora­cious 20-year old.” – and then lets it be known in inter­views that he based the char­ac­ter on his ex-girlfriend (Rielle Hunter)…..and we are to accept this, as fact?

    “What kind of man” is Jay McIn­er­ney? (one assumes he’s the sort of bas­tard that believes in keep­ing score, and evening that score at every oppor­tu­nity).

    I think the key here is that his char­ac­ter is “20 year old” and not a 42 year old….plus the Edwards cam­paign cer­tainly had access to Google/Wikipedia when they paid this woman more than $100,000 – surely they knew who this per­son is now – moreso than an imag­i­na­tive ex-boyfriend from two decades ago.

    Any­way – moe – the most recent thing I read that touched on the legal after­math of the Lin­coln assas­si­na­tion was an enthralling (but dark) book called Amer­i­can Bru­tus by Michael Kauff­man, which con­cludes with an inter­est­ing look at the mil­i­tary tri­bunal that tried, con­victed, and con­demned to death the four co-conspirators they cap­tured, includ­ing Mary Suratt, who ran the board­ing house where Booth and his col­leagues often met. The foot­notes were quite as cap­ti­vat­ing as the text…one of the US Army gen­er­als on the tri­bunal was Lew Wal­lace (of Craw­fordsville, Indi­ana!) – the guy who would write Ben Hur – and he spent his time lob­by­ing Judge Holt for appoint­ment to another mil­i­tary tri­bunal, the one they even­tu­ally tried Henry Wirz (the com­man­dant of the hell­ish Ander­son­ville POW camp). Wal­lace suc­ceeded in that effort, and ulti­mately served on that tri­bunal and con­demned Wirz to the gal­lows, too.

    As a slight digres­sion on this dis­cus­sion of legal mat­ters and due process – there is a WONDERFUL book about Mary Lin­coln, by Jean Baker (who is mar­velous!), which opened my eyes to the legit­i­macy of “Women’s Stud­ies”. Amongst many other fas­ci­nat­ing things, I learned how it came to be that Mary Lin­coln was declared legally insane. In a nut­shell (so to speak), Mary returned to her home in Chicago from shop­ping – it was maybe 11 in the morn­ing – and the sher­iff was wait­ing for her, along with an attor­ney with a writ, and she was taken down­town. There, an already-empaneled jury – all men – was await­ing her arrival, along with a defense attor­ney already selected for her by her son Robert – who had of course set the whole thing in motion!

    She was tried, and the jury retired, and then returned their find­ing that she WAS insane, and that she be imme­di­ately sent to a san­i­tar­ium…..

    So that the “due process” that the widow of the mar­tyred Pres­i­dent of the United States received; the woman who sat right next to him, hold­ing his hand when a bul­let was blasted into his brain….the “due process” includ­ing being arrested, tried, con­victed, sen­tenced, and hauled away – began before lunch, and was ended before sun­down!!

    I never, ever let pass casual remarks about how Mary Lin­coln was “crazy”

  28. brian stouder said on August 9th, 2008 at 10:20 pm

    btw – I clicked over to tbogg, and a bog it is. If I was going onto an inter­net diet, sites like Tom Boggioni’s would be the first to go; although I sup­pose his site is prob­a­bly pleas­ant enough if one shares his prej­u­dices

    http://​www​.face​book​.com/​p​e​o​p​l​e​/​T​o​m​_​B​o​g​g​i​o​n​i​/​6​4​9​173376

  29. coozledad said on August 10th, 2008 at 7:26 am

    I don’t know what prej­u­dices you’re refer­ring to Brian, but if It’s the one most Democ­rats and a plu­ral­ity of the nation share against the peo­ple who’ve been dick­ing the coun­try over for the past eight years, then those are prej­u­dices I think should be pro­moted. TBogg is a check on folks like the above quoted Tom York, who is stunned that Democ­rats would con­sider remand­ing Bush and Cheney to the Hague for war crimes.
    I’m prej­u­diced against Repub­li­cans alright: in the mid­dle of gin­ning up that war with Iraq, Bush, et. al, made sure his media painted Democ­rats as a fifth col­umn, work­ing directly with Sadam Hus­sein and Bin Ladin to destroy your right to own a Hum­mer. I read Repub­li­can edi­to­ri­als in the South call­ing for us to be shipped en masse to jail for refus­ing to equate Bush with the US itself. Unlike Jonah Gold­berg, TBogg seems to know which party affil­i­a­tion is more likely to incline one to prance around in a lit­tle black uni­form and scream about defile­ment of the blood. I dis­tinctly remem­ber hear­ing Repub­li­cans bitch­ing that Tom Daschle didn’t “get his hands in some a’ that pow­der”, and Repub­li­can humorist and per­ox­ide spi­der mon­key Ann Coul­ter call­ing for us to “invade and con­vert” Arab countries”(Most likely with the excep­tion of Bush’s beloved Saudi Ara­bia).
    I would fight for a Republican’s right to vote, but I’m not will­ing to ven­ture that they’re capa­ble of humor, at least any vari­ety other than remov­ing the top from a salt shaker. There’s just a defen­sive­ness and smol­der­ing con­tempt that seems to be rot­ting in them, and they clearly don’t give a shit about voter enfran­chise­ment.
    We were out reg­is­ter­ing vot­ers yes­ter­day. We were wear­ing our Obama T-shirts, but we were reg­is­ter­ing every­body. That’s what Democ­rats do. We had finally found a gro­cery store whose man­ager would let us enable peo­ple to par­tic­i­pate in the process. About half an hour in, some shape­less sack with a Colonel Sanders beard climbs out of his Escalade and walks toward us shak­ing his head. “I ain’t votin’ for that…Obama” (At least I see that the New South can claim some mea­sure of restraint among its racist garbage). A moment later the man­ager walked out­side and told us peo­ple were com­plain­ing, and we had to leave.
    There’s your Repub­li­can, and there’s why I read TBogg.

  30. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on August 10th, 2008 at 11:36 am

    Coo­zledad –

    A few months back, we had a com­mu­nity meet­ing to dis­cuss college/village (aka town/gown) issues. A speaker offered the con­cern that as an Arab-Turkish-woman of color bisex­ual per­son, it was deeply oppres­sive to her that the four cor­ners of the main inter­sec­tion were churches, and she had to pass under their steeples’ col­lec­tive shad­ows (no, a phal­lic com­ment was not made, but i think we were all wait­ing for one. too obvi­ous, maybe.)

    I observed in response that of the four churches, three affirmed GLBT rights, ordained per­sons regard­less of ori­en­ta­tion, and two offered marriage/union cer­e­monies to all and sundry. She replied that she knew all that, but their pres­ence was still oppres­sive for all that. Much head nod­ding ensued.

    Yeah. Last New Year’s Eve, lit­er­ally after dark, work crews moved in and at the cost of over a mil­lion dol­lars removed the three mas­sive gran­ite pan­els with the name, seal, and date of found­ing of the local col­lege, replac­ing them with an iden­ti­cal ver­sion in every respect except remov­ing one word from the inscrip­tion “A Chris­t­ian Col­lege of Lib­eral Arts.” One guess what word was absent, and hint — it weren’t “lib­eral.” The seal is stay­ing, for now, even though it is an open book. For­tu­nately, the pages of the book in the offi­cial design are blank (cue irony machine for bub­bles and con­fetti).

    As for Roy — my life is largely lived in three spheres: home­less­ness assis­tance (tran­si­tional hous­ing), juve­nile jus­tice, and Scout­ing (cue the boo hiss from the left, yeah, yeah). We get our fund­ing cut to Scout­ing every year as the Big Broth­ers chap­ter in our area has had not one but two major molesta­tion cases. I don’t agree entirely with the national Scout­ing pol­icy, but the main point is that they screen, train, and restrict adult lead­er­ship like crazy these days, and reserve the right to be silly and capri­cious in say­ing “no,” includ­ing not screen­ing only for con­vic­tions (which is all back­ground checks and fin­ger­print­ing gets you). Many of us are work­ing to get Scout­ing to a more rea­soned, nuanced pol­icy — much like the Amer­i­can Red Cross blood donor pol­icy needs chang­ing, but i still give every 60 days (11 gal­lons and count­ing), and don’t “not give” because their pol­icy is stu­pid.

    My point to Roy and any and all is this — in all three areas i work in, reli­gious con­ser­v­a­tives, by which i mean peo­ple usu­ally waaaay more con­ser­v­a­tive than me, work their tails off help­ing peo­ple face to face, with lit­tle or no direct pros­e­lytism going on at all. I live in the afore­men­tioned col­lege town where all my friends and neigh­bors actu­ally spent time won­der­ing what we should “do” about the fact that four churches (three hugely lib­eral) sit on our main inter­sec­tion.

    Yes, my town went all eight precincts for Obama last pri­mary day, when the other 150 in the county went for Hillary. Yeah. Any­how, when Roy says “their oth­er­wise puz­zling lack of inter­est in the world at hand and the peo­ple who live in it,” he has NO idea what he’s talk­ing about. None. If only lib­er­als came and got their hands dirty and their hearts bro­ken work­ing with the last and the least out on our pot­holed and cor­rupt streets, but they don’t much.

    Theo­Cons i’ve learned to work with because that’s who shows up. And it does rub off a bit. A les­son for lib­er­als, per­haps?

  31. nancy said on August 10th, 2008 at 11:42 am

    C’dad and Brian were talk­ing about TBogg, not Roy. I will fight to the death any­one who besmirches Roy unfairly, because yea he is a national trea­sure. TBogg runs hot and warm, but I love his dog­gies, which is why I linked.

    Both con­fine their con­tempt to reli­gious con­ser­v­a­tives who have blogs, columns and/or high-profile sinecures at right-wing think tanks and say stu­pid things in con­nec­tion with them, not the ones out doing actual work in the world. I defy any­one to read The Cor­ner for a week or two and make the case these peo­ple are truly inter­ested in the world out­side of it.

  32. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on August 10th, 2008 at 1:12 pm

    Not besmirch­ing Roy unfairly, i trust, since he said (in fuller quo­ta­tion) “It is the bliss­ful prospect of a world beyond that makes sense of their oth­er­wise puz­zling lack of inter­est in the world at hand and the peo­ple who live in it. ”

    I felt some­what smirchi­fied by that one. But hey, i like cats more than dogs, too. A trial to my friends and a baf­fle­ment to my oppo­nents, that’s my true call­ing I guess.

    On the short list of times when i thought of it at the moment, not on the stairs head­ing out — Bob Taft, try­ing to be funny i’m sure, say­ing to me “you’re such a nice guy, why are you with this group caus­ing so much trou­ble?” And i grinned back to him “Gov­er­nor, i’m really not such a nice guy!”

  33. Deborah said on August 10th, 2008 at 10:17 pm

    ugh, ick, sex­ual preda­tor Lisa Druck, Riele Hunter, Ali­son Poole what­ever her name is… what a creep. I hope she gets strung up by the press, she deserves it. Again, not excus­ing Edwards, he sure seems like a naive fool. I have a prob­lem with opin­ion being against the stray­ing hus­band solely… I think the “other woman” bears some respon­si­bil­ity in the immoral­ity. She wasn’t snook­ered, who are we kid­ding.

  34. LAMary said on August 11th, 2008 at 10:44 am

    She’s only a fic­tional Poole. We real Pooles are much more dis­creet about our sex­ual pre­da­tion.