"When We Were Beautiful", the new Bon Jovi rockumentary premieres tonight on Showtime, followed by 15 minutes of their Madison Square Garden concert. He's got the best face in rock and roll, so I'll be watching.

HBO is airing Milk, with Sean Penn.

What's on your agenda and minds tonight? This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

HBO is airing Schmatta: Rags to Riches, a history of New York's garment district.

For thousands of immigrants the garment industry was a path to their American Dream, but today most of those jobs are gone. A microcosm of the economic and social forces transforming our nation over the past one hundred years, Schmatta: Rags To Riches To Rags tells the story of this vanishing industry through the voices of the people who have experienced its highs and lows.

I'm also watching Grey's Anatomy.

Here's an open thread for the evening, all topics welcome.

Not sure if John Cole is predicting he will, but it seems that way:

So let’s see how this plays out. By the end of the day, everyone throw eggs at the Administration [for allegedly walking away from the public option], and particularly blame it on Rahm (he is evil, dontcha know!). Maybe we can join with the Republicans and chant “just words” and write long posts claiming Obama is selling us out. Then, tomorrow, when the administration says that they still strongly support a public option [. . .]

(Emphasis supplied.) It's a weird thought from Cole - that Republicans will protest Obama giving up on the public option. More . . .

Who is Paul Sullivan? I only know of him because of masaccio, who pointed out this extraordinary NYTimes column, in which he appears to have inverted the plot of Preston Sturges' classic film Sullivan's Travels. Instead of discovering the misery in the poverty stricken America of the Great Depression, as Sturges' protaganist John L. Sullivan did, our modern day Sullivan discovered the travails of the beleaguered wealthy in today's America of "little people" hating on their betters:

Beating up on the wealthy seems to be the order of day. I suspected that. But a recent Wealth Matters column touched a particularly raw nerve. It looked at how even people with sizable fortunes were concerned about money in this recession and the impact that could have on the rest of us. Readers rejected the attempt to understand the concerns of the rich.

[. . .] [I]n this recession, anger flows one way. Eric Dammann, a Manhattan psychoanalyst, theorizes that a lot of people are angry that the rules of the game seem to have changed. “There’s always been envy and hatred toward the rich, but there was also a strong undercurrent of admiration that was holding these people up as a goal,” Mr. Dammann said. “This time it’s different because it feels like it’s a closed club and the rich have an unfair advantage.”

Heh. The anger flows one way. The rich are not mad at the poor I guess is what he is saying. But it gets better:

Kos wrote two strange things about Rasmussen:

"I don't know if Ras' turn to wingnutia has affected their basic election polling yet [. . .]" and "now that Rasmussen has decided to skew questions in order to advance the conservative agenda[.]"

(Emphasis supplied.) Turn? Now? Ras has been a GOP hack since he started. What is this "now" and "turn to" stuff?

Speaking for me only

I figure people want to talk about it. But it was so obvious that to me the only thing worth discussing is what was a sharp guy like Dave Checketts thinking?

Checketts ran NBA teams. He knew what having Limbaugh would mean to his bid didn't he? Pretty surprising given the fact Checketts was really a very good executive in the NBA.

As for the whinefest over Limbaugh, well, there is nothing of merit to even address. The idea that the NFL would want Limbaugh associated with them was insane. It was a business decision. And an obvious one. Last I heard, businesses are allowed to make good business decisions.

Speaking for me only

Ezra really does not get it:

A lot of people are concerned that Sen. Olympia Snowe is going to have an outsized role on health-care reform. It's a fair concern. Indeed, it's a virtual certainty. But it's worth comparing Snowe's outsized role to the alternative: Ben Nelson, the 60th least-liberal Democrat, being in the driver's seat on health-care reform.

Ezra is simply wrong here. Ben Nelson, a Democrat (albeit a very very conservative one), does not provide High Broderist cover for capitulation on health care reform. Olympia Snowe (no question less conservative than Ben Nelson) does. "Losing Snowe" will be treated as a catastrophe in the Village. Having Ben Nelson oppose you, even to the point of joining a Republican filibuster, is not nearly so damaging.

If Ben Nelson opposes you to the point of filibuster, then a BETTER bill through reconciliation is possible. Nelson, knowing this, will be easier to deal with than Snowe, who knows she has more power than Nelson. Snowe in the room means Obama will capitulate to her and the Village will rejoice. Nelson in the room allows for the threat of reconciliation hanging over him. It just is not there for Snowe. We have seen this movie before. Apparently, Ezra has forgotten it already (more likely Ezra is unconcerned about the capitulations that Snowe will demand (on the public option.))

Speaking for me only

if they are right about Obama in every respect? That he is not a pol, like the rest of them? That he really does have an 11 dimensional chess strategy that will deliver every progressive dream? Wouldn't it be nice?

Maybe if we think and wish and hope and pray it might come true
Baby then there wouldn't be a single thing we couldn't do

In the meantime, just in case they are wrong, may I suggest we keep fighting for those policies, not pols, that we believe in.

Speaking for me only

Glenn Greenwald:

Everyone is free to do whatever they want with their columns and blogs, of course, but I personally have never understood why someone would want to turn themselves into an arm of the Obama White House -- to "carry water" for the Party apparatus, using Rush Limbaugh's confessional. Barack Obama has a massive communications team already devoted to that function. They even have their own website and blog that fills that role. The DNC, DCCC, and scores of other huge, massively-funded institutions already exist to justify whatever he does, attack the GOP, and generally promote the Party and administration line. Blogs which replicate that function can't add very much.

I've always seen the unique value of political blogs as applying outside citizen pressure on Beltway institutional political power -- which now resides primarily in Barack Obama and the Democrats -- to reject or at least resist the standard Washington influences. Every well-funded institutional faction is working feverishly using every means they have -- lobbyists, money, advertising -- to pressure the Democratic Party to serve their agenda. Why shouldn't "people on the Left" do the same? Shouldn't health care activists care more about the public option than Obama's political standing? Shouldn't gay rights activists be agitating aggressively for concrete action rather than pretty speeches? Shouldn't civil libertarians be constantly protesting an administration that has stomped on their beliefs? Shouldn't anti-war activists and empire opponents be objecting to the obvious incompatibility between escalating a war and being deemed the earth's leading peace activist?

(Emphasis supplied.) Yes they should. And on Glenn's last point, even those of us who support the President's policy on Afghanistan should, through sheer intellectual honesty, understand that escalating wars, whether I think such escalation right or not, should pretty much disqualify you from consideration of a peace award.

Speaking for me only

I just watched it. First rate. It has spurred many thoughts. I'll try to detail them tomorrow. More than ever, I think comprehensive engagement in Afghanistan is imperative to U.S. national interest. In addition, the reporting on Pakistan's corrosive role in the region is outstanding. The interviews with Afghanistan's intelligence minister were most revealing and impressive. PBS correspondent Martin Smith did a great great job.

If you missed it, you can watch it here.

Booman writes - hilarity ensues:

If you supported Obama during the primaries, you know who you are and this does not necessarily apply to you. For the rest of you, you spent the primaries either shilling for Clinton and telling us our guy was all talk and no show, or you spent them bitching that David Plouffe wouldn't respond to and obey your emailed wisdom. As soon as he won the presidency, you started bitching about his appointments. As soon as he became president, you started bitching about his messaging, his framing, his agenda, and his lack of deference to your opinion. I want to know where the point was in this process when Obama was supposed to conclude that you were his allies and that you were responsible for his victory. When was he supposed to conclude that he owed you something, or that you had any respect for him, or that you credited his good intentions, or that you understood the myriad responsibilities of the job might mean that your pet issues might have to wait six months, a year, or two years to get to the top of his agenda.

[. . .] I think the White House is willing to listen to criticism from their allies. From you? Not so much.

Heh. I think Booman thinks that Obama will be taking his calls now. Being an "ally" and all. I never had any illusion that ANY pol is my "ally" or friend. What I would like folks to imagine is a post written like this about say, Harry Reid. Why doesn't anyone write "Leave Harry Reid Alone!" posts I wonder?

Speaking for me only

BarbinMD likes this from Eugene Robinson:

The problem for the addlebrained Obama-rejectionists is that the president, as far as they are concerned, couldn't possibly do anything right, and thus is unworthy of any conceivable recognition. If Obama ended world hunger, they'd accuse him of promoting obesity. If he solved global warming, they'd complain it was getting chilly. If he got Mahmoud Abbas and Binyamin Netanyahu to join him around the campfire in a chorus of "Kumbaya," the rejectionists would claim that his singing was out of tune.

(Emphasis supplied.) Perhaps they would. But reasonable people question THE NOBEL COMMITTEE (NOT Obama who had nothing to do with this) in its decision to award an IF. This simple proposition seems impossible for some to understand.

Speaking for me only