Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Everything Helps McCain

By Batocchio

McCain likes to mention himself as part of the “Reagan Revolution,” but his greatest legacy from Saint Ronnie may be his Teflon coating. On ABC’s This Week, Mark Halperin explained how McCain not knowing how many houses he owned helped… McCain. TPM has the video:

A few key lines:

HALPERIN: My hunch is this is going to end up being one of the worst moments in the entire campaign for one of the candidates, but it’s Barack Obama… I believe that this has opened the door to not just Tony Rezko in that ad, but to bringing up Reverend Wright, to bringing up his relationship with Bill Ayers… I think it would have been hard for John McCain, given the way he says he’s going to run this campaign, to do all this stuff without the door being opened… It started with the Obama campaign, filled with machismo and aggressiveness…

Halperin gets extra points for bringing up Rezko, Wright and Ayers all in one sentence. Mighty efficient. Never mind if there’s little to nothing to these “scandals” — in Halperin’s world, it’s all about what will play and what will stick.

It’s interesting how Halperin speaks about McCain and “the way he says he’s going to run this campaign.” It’s as if Halperin hasn’t bothered to watch what the man of honor and his campaign actually have been doing, and remains blissfully unaware of the numerous negative ads they’ve run. Stephanopoulos even brings up McCain’s smear against Obama, that he’d rather lose a war than an election, but Halperin brushes it off. In his world, the macho, aggressive Obama campaign started all this, and it will be their fault when the McCain campaign continues decides to go negative – with great reluctance, I’m sure. Halperin’s always been about the perception game versus the merits of a claim (or heaven forbid, a policy), but it’s a pretty bizarre stance nonetheless. Even Cokie Roberts isn’t buying it.

Think Progress points out that Halperin claimed the Russia-Georgia conflict helped McCain, too. Crooks and Liars has a slightly longer clip of the same segment (about 5 minutes), and ABC has the entire segment (about 20 minutes).

To their credit, Stephanopoulos and Brazile challenge Halperin somewhat, and Cokie Roberts actually makes some sensible points about the real economic issues at work. Unsurprisingly though, none of that lasts long. It’s especially rich to hear Halperin say, “But Donna, would you rather this election be about Ayers versus Keating, or about the economy and George Bush?” as if Halperin’s being talking about the economy in a substantive way rather than bringing up gossipy GOP smears.

The C&L clip also shows some choice comments of George Will’s before Halperin starts in. Few pundits can bring the pompous like George Will, and he’s in fine form here. Will tries to dismiss the charges against McCain by pointing out that FDR was wealthy but did a great deal for those who weren’t, according to what he calls “the mythology” of the Democratic Party. FDR did do a great deal for the non-wealthy, of course, and Will is correct that both McCain and Obama are rich, but he conveniently avoids any discussion of their economic policies and their consequences. McCain is certainly no FDR on taxes. Digby recently revisited the campaigns’ competing tax policies and how the rich get even richer under McCain while the middle class fares better under Obama, yet the Democrats still get tagged as “elitists.” This is not a dynamic Will wishes to change. In his most recent column, he plays a similar game, assailing Obama on his energy policy and also on his plan to raise taxes on the rich. Will closes by asking, “In this year’s campaign, soggy with environmental messianism, deranged self-importance and delusional economics, the question is: Where is the derisive laughter?” Will smacks Obama around for his “nonsensical political rhetoric,” but on taxes Will never does mention who benefits under Obama’s plan versus McCain’s, and never discusses their comparative soundness. He won’t mention that Obama will pay more in taxes under his own policy, while Cindy McCain will receive about $370,000 under the McCain plan. Nor does Will offer any derisive laughter for McCain’s plan to balance the budget and reduce the deficit through “victory” in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It’s not surprising that conservative pundits such as Will would take this approach, but it would be nice if supposedly objective reporters like Halperin didn’t also push GOP talking points, and great if supposedly Democratic pundits pushed back much more forcefully. Despite Halperin’s high-minded protestations, it’s not so much that the Obama campaign hasn’t been about Bush, the economy and other issues, it’s more that our television talking heads prefer talking about the Keating Five, Ayers and attack ads. (And if they must talk about such things, it’d be nice if at least they weren’t nonsensical.)

It’s not just Halperin, of course. Tom Brokaw and Chuck Todd recently defended McCain on the houses front, with Brokaw citing an e-mail to invoke — you guessed it – the POW defense. I imagine they heard what Halperin heard — John McCain said he’d run a respectful campaign, and John McCain is an honorable man (so are they all, Rick Davis included, honorable men). It reminds me of this stirring defense for the Teflon saint:

I’m not sure why it’s a ringing endorsement that McCain doesn’t know what’s going on in his own campaign. But still, who’s Mark Halperin supposed to believe, the honorable John McCain, or his lying campaign?
 

Passed Over
by Dover Bitch

The Rat[Loving] Express is rolling ahead with an ad called “Passed Over,” lamenting the fact that Barack Obama didn’t select Hillary Clinton as his running mate, despite the fact that she received millions of votes. The McCain camp charges that Clinton spoke the truth and Obama couldn’t stand the pain.

I, for one, cannot wait to celebrate the exciting news that John McCain has selected Ron Paul as his vice president.

Old school
by Dover Bitch

Over at his new base of operations, the Washington Monthly’s Political Animal, the prolific Steve Benen (he has to be a robot) brings up the impolitic age issue:

Interestingly enough, 87% said they were comfortable with an African-American president, but 55% said the same about a 72-year-old president. Moreover, while 11% conceded they were uncomfortable with an African-American president, 45% said the same of a 72-year-old president. Only 6% said they were “entirely uncomfortable” with a black president, while more than triple, 20%, said the same of a septuagenarian.

Now, I don’t doubt that some respondents were being less than honest about their racial prejudices, but even putting that aside, that’s a lot of people who are obviously uneasy about McCain’s advanced age.

I continue to think this is something of a sleeper issue in this campaign. There’s been enormous interest in exploring the racial angles to this campaign, but there’s ample data — going back to early last year — that McCain’s age actually matters to voters, and it’s an issue that raises doubts.

Absolutely it’s a big issue. And there’s no way that the Obama campaign can come right out and say it. Fortunately, the McCain camp has already demonstrated how to get a message out there: By ostensibly putting out an entirely different message.

John McCain stands in front of signs that read “COUNTRY FIRST” and states flatly that Obama wants America to lose a war for his own personal interests. That’s clearly a question of judgment! How could anybody think he was questioning Obama’s patriotism?

JILL ZUCKMAN, “THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE”: I just want to be a little contrarian here. How do you talk about a war—how do you talk about your opponent’s position on the war without it being imbued with the patriotism issue? McCain didn’t say, I’m questioning his patriotism. He’s questioning his policy. Obama wanted to bring the troops home when things were very, very bad in Iraq. And he wants to bring them home now when things are good.

Well done, Jill!

Even though IOKIYAR is usually the order of the day, the subtext detectors of the chattering classes appear eager to scrutinize Obama’s ads for hidden meaning. Here’s Chris Matthews, reacting to the Obama ad that points out how out-of-touch John McCain is with his countless assets:

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Richard, tough call here, was that an implicit shot at what some people call a senior moment, when a person can’t remember what they should remember? Was that another way they thought they were hurting him by jumping on him?

WOLFFE: The framework they’re using—and you can decide for yourself whether this refers to age—is him being out of touch. Now, is he out of touch with his own life or out of touch with the American people and the economy as it is today? The campaign would argue strenuously this is about the economy. But, you know, what’s the explanation for someone not knowing how much property they own? It’s either his wife was really running things. Their marriage is such that they don’t really share these issues with each other. Or he’s got too much property. Or he’s somehow cut loose from his own life.

Every “Democratic Strategist” on his show has explained to Matthews that the ad is about the economy and that a guy who believes in “mental recessions” ought to at least understand what it is to have money on your mind. But if Hardball wants to talk about John McCain’s age all day, great. Let them think that Obama wants to make age an issue, too. We all know that “journalistic rules” prevent the media professionals from creating a debate unless the Democrats explicitly tell them to. If they don’t think that things like the age and Ambien consumption of the president are worthy of discussion without provocation from the Obama camp, then they’ll have to be led to believe that provocation is really happening. It would seem they’re willing to believe it already.

There will be no honeymoon
by Dover Bitch

On the eve of the Democratic Convention, I think it might be a good idea to remind ourselves what happened after the last one and prepare ourselves for how quickly the Republicans will try to change the subject.

On Thursday, July 29, 2004, John Kerry had a modest lead in the polls and Democrats were energized as the convention came to a close. Delegates, activists and party leaders returned home, ready to re-engage with their communities. But before Monday rolled around and anybody had a chance to gather at the water cooler, Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge emerged with an important announcement:

Secretary Ridge: Good afternoon, ladies and gentleman. President Bush has told you, and I have reiterated the promise, that when we have specific credible information, that we will share it. Now this afternoon, we do have new and unusually specific information about where al-Qaeda would like to attack. And as a result, today, the United States Government is raising the threat level to Code Orange for the financial services sector in New York City, Northern New Jersey and Washington, DC.

Since September 11th, 2001, leaders of our commercial financial institutions have demonstrated exceptional leadership in improving its security. However, in light of new intelligence information, we have made the decision to raise the threat level for this sector, in these communities, to bring protective resources to an even higher level.

Code Orange!

It was still 2004, so millions of Americans who know now that the Bush Administration will tell them absolutely anything were still willing to accept that there was a legitimate threat and action needed to be taken immediately. It wasn’t just Republicans, after all. When crazy Howard Dean suggested there may be politics involved (YEARGHH!), George Bush’s favorite Democrat took to the airwaves with outrage:

SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: I don’t think anybody who has any fairness or is in their right mind would think that the president or the secretary of Homeland Security would raise an alert level and scare people for political reasons.

Perish the thought. This was “specific credible information” and Sec. Ridge had no choice but to come right out that particular Sunday and deliver the grim news. After all, the information they had was, uh, three years old.

Ridge hadn’t exactly divulged that the information was in their possession for a long time and was more along the lines of surveillance notes rather than attack plans. But any reporter — or citizen — with the ability to think rationally when the government screamed “TERROR!” might have noticed that this is a strange thing to see when you bring your camera to a building that’s about to be attacked by al-Qaeda:

Naturally, when there is “specific credible information” that a building is about to be attacked, the Presidential Playbook instructs him to send his wife and children to the target for a photo op with the mayor and governor. Bush’s decision was textbook.

It is as clear in retrospect as it should have been to any observer back then: The Bush/Cheney/Rove operation would play on America’s fears to win the election. Keith Olbermann has documented this strategy well with his Nexus Of Politics And Terror.

It’s also important to note that there is a steep cost to us all when this happens. Not just the psychological damage that comes with an electorate whose judgment is clouded by fear and not just the damage done to our nation when a population ceases to trust a government that cries wolf. According to the American Public Transportation Association, “[e]very day on Orange Alert costs transit systems at least $900,000 a day.”

In 2003, New York Governor George Pataki explained that Code Orange isn’t free:

GOV. GEORGE PATAKI (R), NEW YORK: Well, there’s no question that being at this heightened level of alert has cost New York State hundreds of millions of dollars.

MESERVE: Neighboring New Jersey says maintaining threat level orange costs $125,000 a day. And the city of Baltimore estimates its costs at $300,000 a week.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors in 2003 (PDF) wrote:

[W]we estimate that cities nationwide are spending nearly $70 million per week in additional homeland security costs due to the war and heightened threat alert level. If the war and/or threat alert level continue for six months, cities would incur nearly $2 billion in additional costs.

We stress that these costs come ON TOP OF existing homeland security spending already underway or planned since 9/11. In addition, this survey only asked cities about DIRECT costs, new money that had to be allocated for homeland security because of the war or threat alert. These figures do NOT account for the huge INDIRECT costs cities are experiencing.

In the case of this “limited” Orange Alert in New York, many of those indirect costs were paid by ordinary citizens:

”Anything that slows down the city in general has economic impact, and anything that affects the financial institutions that are still our most important industry also has an impact,” said Ronnie Lowenstein, an economist who is director of the city’s Independent Budget Office. ”It is hard to imagine that these kinds of warnings don’t have any impact.”

Rob Kotch, who runs Breakaway Courier Systems, a business that like much of New York’s economy depends on speed and mobility, put it another way.

”The cost of all this security is friction to the economy,” Mr. Kotch said. ”You consider the cost of a driver is $45 an hour. Do the math. If you put a dollar amount on waiting time sitting in traffic for security checks, it can be huge.”

Millions of dollars for the First Lady and Twins to “reassure” the people working in one building. Millions of dollars to make everybody in America afraid. Mostly taxpayer dollars. That Aug. 1 Orange Alert remained in effect for 102 days, through the RNC in New York City and until after the election.

And the cost was actually much steeper. It wasn’t simply a financial loss America took to change the subject away from John Kerry’s convention:

But what’s more disturbing, perhaps even more than the new details of al-Qaida’s twisted plotting, is the Bush administration’s outing of an undercover al-Qaida agent in its rush to justify raising the terror alert. This move, whether politically motivated or rooted in incompetence has terrorism and security experts shocked and dismayed for the harm inflicted on intelligence operations against al-Qaida. CNN reports today that the administration “may have shut down an important source of information that has already led to a series of al-Qaida arrests” when officials revealed Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan’s identity to journalists last week (Khan is the computer expert who “flipped” last month and was operating as a double-agent for the Pakistani government). Do we have so many plugged-in al-Qaida double agents that we can afford to lose one and with him all of his connections and leads? Of course not.

Juan Cole looks at the consequences: British intelligence agents scrambled last week to arrest 13 members of a London al-Qaida cell before they fled after learning  from the Bush administration!  that Khan had been arrested. “The British do not, however, appear to have finished gathering enough evidence to prosecute the 13 in the courts successfully,” Cole writes. And even worse: 5 got away. “If this is true,” Cole says. “It is likely that the 5 went underground on hearing that Khan was in custody. That is, the loose lips of the Bush administration enabled them to flee arrest. Of the 13 taken into custody on Aug. 3, two were released for lack of evidence and two others were ‘no longer being questioned on suspicion of terrorism offences.'”

It may be another election, but George Bush is still president, Dick Cheney is still VP. Karl Rove’s team is advising John McCain. Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge are on television every day as McCain surrogates and potential VP picks. The polls are close and all the talking heads believe (as does McCain, evidenced by his reaction to events in Georgia) that anything involving threats to America will help the GOP.

I’m glad Barack Obama already had a week to have fun in Hawaii. There will be no honeymoon after this convention.

UPDATE: By popular demand, here is a 2005 USA Today story about the source of Ridge’s announcements:

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says.

Ridge, who resigned Feb. 1, said Tuesday that he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or “high” risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled.

His comments at a Washington forum describe spirited debates over terrorist intelligence and provide rare insight into the inner workings of the nation’s homeland security apparatus.

Ridge said he wanted to “debunk the myth” that his agency was responsible for repeatedly raising the alert under a color-coded system he unveiled in 2002.

“More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it,” Ridge told reporters. “Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don’t necessarily put the country on (alert). … There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, ‘For that?’ “

For the record, I’m not predicting that there will be a terror alert next week. I’m merely pointing out that this crew will go to serious lengths to change the subject and we might as well prevent the element of surprise from being a factor (and bust out the popcorn).

Question

by digby

Is it really necessary for the press to keep saying over and over how shocking it is that Joe Biden was able to keep the news to himself for two days? What is he, ten? I

I realize the man is loquacious, but I don’t know that he’s prone to spilling secrets. If he is, then maybe Obama should rethink this. And Delaware should rethink having him as a US senator. If it’s not true, then maybe the press could keep their snide, snotty little eye-rolling to themselves.

.

Guest List

by digby

I’m traveling today and I think dday is too. We’ll both be posting next week, bringing all of our bloggy impressions of the big party, as wireless access and hangovers permit. However, the world will keep turning and I thought you would probably appreciate having something to read about besides my Colbert stalking, so I’ve enlisted Dover Bitch and Batoccio of Vagabond Scholar to fill in during the convention. I’m sure you’ll enjoy their blogging stylings.

.

Saturday Night At The Movies

Like one of his earlier, funnier films

By Dennis Hartley

Ay, Mama.

Dare I say it? Woody Allen’s new film, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, is his wisest, sexiest and most engaging romantic comedy in, um, years. Okay…truth? To rate it on a sliding scale: as far as his own particular brand of genial bedroom farces go, it may not be in quite the same league as, let’s say, Hannah and Her Sisters , but it handily blows the boudoir doors off of A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy.

The Barcelona-bound Vicky (Rebecca Hall) and Cristina (Scarlett Johansson) are two young Americans who have decided to take a summer breather in the form of a Mediterranean getaway. Vicky, engaged to be married in the fall, is enjoying her last holiday as a single woman, and is looking forward to indulging her scholarly interest in Catalan architecture (she has a Gaudi fixation). Cristina is taking a mental health break after self-producing and starring in a short film (which “she hates”) about the Meaning of Love. The women are warm friends, but polar opposites in the personality department. Vicky is practical, analytical and guarded; a no-nonsense, borderline control freak. Cristina is adventurous and free-spirited, but suffers a bevy of neuroses and insecurities. In their own symbiotic manner, Vicky and Cristina are really two sides of the same coin.

Enter seasoned coin-flipper Javier Bardem, who drops the cattle prod and picks up an artist’s brush for a return to his main forte-portraying a smoldering heartbreaker with the soul of a poet. In this outing, Bardem is Juan Antonio, a lusty Spanish painter who espies the two women in a Barcelona restaurant one sultry evening. Eschewing the usual small talk, he strolls up to their table and announces his sincere wish that the two of them come away with him in his private plane for a romantic weekend on a Spanish isle. The incredulous Vicky bristles at the presumptuous come-on; Cristina shrugs off her friend’s warnings and votes for calling Juan Antonio on his bluff. What the hell, they’re on vacation-why not venture a little spontaneity (besides, it’s Javier Bardem, fer chrissake). Against her better judgment, Vicky reluctantly acquiesces to her friend, and off they go.

What ensues that weekend (don’t worry, mum’s the word) ultimately changes the lives of all three; not to mention any previous notions they may have had about los misterios del amor. Things really get interesting when Juan Antonio’s tempestuous ex-wife (Penelope Cruz) enters the mix (again, I can’t really elaborate-I don’t want to spoil your fun!).

Allen’s playful screenplay deftly addresses the age old question: Are human beings really monogamous by nature? Is it realistic (or even fair) to expect one Significant Other to nurture and fulfill all of our physical and intellectual needs? And what’s wrong with occasionally breaking the mold of what constitutes a “relationship” amongst consenting adults? Jesus Christ lizards, I’m sounding like Dr. Phil here…but you get the gist.

To be sure, this is a perennially popular theme in film; Francois Truffaut’s Jules et Jim being the most famous example and most obvious touchstone here. Also, the contrast of the voluptuous and almost shockingly blonde Johansson against the deep azure of the Mediterranean recalls Godard’s similar utilization of Bardot. Then again, Allen has made no secret of his long time infatuation with European cinema; to paraphrase the Woodman himself, “Hey, he had to mold himself after SOMEONE!” There are worse influences.

After three films in a row, I have now grumpily accepted Scarlett Johansson as Allen’s latest muse (we all know how he gets obsessed with his leading ladies). Is it just me, or does she always have the dazed look of someone who has just been shaken awake from a nap? Don’t get me wrong, the camera really loves her (her translucent beauty is a DP’s dream) but I find her husky monotone a bit stultifying at times. Perhaps her “method” is too subtle for me? Or am I just pining too much for the halcyon days of Diane Keaton?

Rebecca Hall (a Brit, actually) is a wonderful seriocomic actress, and is someone to keep an eye out for. She’s like a less twitchy Parker Posey. I think Cruz should get an Oscar nod for her work here (she’s that good). The Bardem and Cruz reunion is pure gold (this is their first onscreen pairing since Jamon Jamon back in 1992) and it’s a true delight to watch. Wisely, Allen gives them several scenes where they get to showcase their formidable talents while speaking in their native tongue; their performances really jump out of the screen in those moments. He is smart enough to understand an unfortunate anomaly that sometimes occurs when accomplished foreign actors are cast in American productions: their broken English often gets unfairly misinterpreted as stilted acting.

I think Woody is back. And he’s made something that (sadly) is a bit of an anomaly itself at the multiplex these days: A hot date movie for grown-ups. So call the sitter, already!

Lust in the Mediterranean: L’Auberge Espagnole, Gaudi Afternoon, Barcelona, All About My Mother, A Touch of Class, Enchanted April,Under the Tuscan Sun, Two for the Road, Swept Away , Contempt , Tempest, Zorba the Greek, Never on Sunday, 24 Heures de la Vie d’Une Femme (Original French Version)(2003), Much Ado About Nothing (1993), Day for Night, To Catch a Thief , Purple Noon, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, Summer Lovers .

.

Not That It Matters

by digby

The news media has been so riveted on the tiresome non-story of the vice presidential pick that this piece of interesting news passed with little comment. Dan Froomkin unpacks it deftly:

In agreeing to pull U.S. combat troops out of Iraqi cities by June, and from the rest of the country by 2011, President Bush has apparently consented to precisely the kind of timetable that, when Democrats called for one, he dismissed as “setting a date for failure.” Bush can call it an “aspirational goal” until he turns blue, but a timetable is exactly what it is, thank you very much.

Bush has repeatedly warned that politics and public opinion should have no role in the decision about when to leave Iraq, but apparently he just meant American politics and public opinion. A clear majority of Americans has favored a withdrawal timetable for several years now, putting anti-war Democrats in control of Congress in 2006.

Bush ignored them. But in the end, he bowed to the will of the Iraqis’ elected representatives. After five and a half years of occupation, it was their turn to put a gun to Bush’s head: The timetable was the price they demanded for agreeing to let American troops remain in the country beyond the expiration of a United Nations mandate in December.

Bush’s acquiescence pulls the rug out from under Republican presidential candidate John McCain, whose position on Iraq was largely identical to Bush’s — pre-backflip. In some ways, the new timetable is even shorter than the one proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

So how is this not exactly what Bush had previously decried as an invitation to disaster?

I don’t know. This could be an extremely important political moment but I can’t see how it’s going to play. Will it be that the Republicans have finally acquiesced to reality and are accepting the terms that Obama has been pushing for some time, as Froomkin suggests? Or will it suggest that the brilliant military leader John McCain was right about the surge which led to our glorious victory?

The coverage has been so muddled that I can’t tell yet what the political take-away will be for this. Maybe nothing at all. One thing’s for sure: it’s a testimony to their puerile obsession with shiny objects that the TV gasbags spent an entire two days bloviating about something quite dull that was going to be announced shortly and didn’t pay any attention at all to something important that already had been.

.

Biden

by digby

One final word on Biden Day. When Al Gore named Lieberman in the summer of 2000, I hung my head for a good long while and nearly cried. It was a sign of total capitulation to the right wing’s attacks of the previous eight years. That choice of VP was a low point.

Biden doesn’t make me feel that way. He’s a Washington insider, with all that that implies, but at least he hasn’t spent his career making the social conservatives’ case for them. He is undisciplined and unpredictable — but I have to tell you, I think the Obama campaign could use a little bit of that at this point. They are control freaks and I don’t think it’s such a bad thing for them to have a little bit of a loose cannon in their midst. Maybe it will shake things up. It’s a good sign that they picked someone who wasn’t completely “safe.”

They could have done a lot worse — and if Biden can speak the language of the working class Dems (even if his record speaks to the typical beltway fealty to big business) then he is an asset.

.

Visual Conventions

by digby

Here’s an interesting little piece on the producer of the Democratic convention. He sounds like he knows what he’s doing. But I have to say that I completely disagree with this:

At heart, a political convention is “a big corporate meeting,” he said, which his company also routinely produces.

I don’t think that’s true. At heart it’s a TV advertisement, which seems to me to be a completely different thing.

He’s just the technical producer, so he’s not responsible for the content of the convention, but the selling of the party and candidate need to be seamless with the production. I’m not trying to criticize in advance. It sounds like they are doing some exciting technological things that will make for a very impressive TV visual and I have an open mind. I hope it looks incredible.

Speaking of pictures, Michael Shaw and his crew of photo journalists from BagNewsNotes will be doing their thing at the convention, analyzing the story the visuals are telling. Keep your eyes on this. The story the TV gasbags tell will very likely be completely irrelevant.

Clarification: When I say the story the gasbags tell will be irrelevant, I meant to say irrelevant to what the pictures are telling people. Their stories will be very relevant to those who hear them. Unfortunately.

.