Convention Wrap




Well, my four-day voyage into the heart of American democracy has ended. John Kerry has accepted the nomination, and I've accepted the mantle of America's preeminent political blogger. These are heady times for both of us. I kinda wish I had a "band of brothers" to share it with, but for now, I guess you'll do.

So what have we learned this week? We've learned that John Kerry may be the most qualified man in the country to fight Al Queda in Vietnam. We've learned that the flag of the United States of America doesn't belong to any one party, it belongs to anyone trying to win a national election. And we've learned that a (sorta) skinny kid with a funny screen name can cover the conventions as well as any of the hacks at the networks. Lt. LF reporting for duty!

Let me say a special word of thanks to the people who made this week possible, beginning with my parents. They taught me the values of faith, family and country that I hope to one day incorporate into a best-selling series and documentary for HBO. I'll never forget the immigrant cab-driver who couldn't speak English very well but had some great dish about the Kennedys. I'll always remember the 23-year-old waitress, struggling to make ends meet, with a child in daycare and a husband away in Iraq or Afghanistan or - I don't really remember, because Bono was at another table and I got very distracted. Oh, what cool sunglasses he had! These are memories I'll treasure in my heart forever, unless America is attacked again and I become an arch right-winger who despises everyone I've partied with for the last four days. Hopefully, that won't happen. But if it does....well, that's why we have two conventions.

A great American novelist once said, You can't go home again. My parents said something similar. But tonight, I am home. Home in my living room. Home with my cats and my Plastic Bertrand posters. So tonight, on behalf of all Lomblog participants, with a faith that tomorrow's posts will be better than today's, I say to you - I really need a shower.

Cue the balloons!

Convention Week Continues

Another exciting night in Beantown. If you've been watching at home, you've probably seen the way Democrats have reached out to people who are unemployed, destitute, and without hope, whether they've just returned from Iraq or broken off an engagement with J-Lo. Unfortunately, I've been too busy star-gazing and enjoying my mini-bar to speak with many of the convention attendees. That's where our National Affairs editor William Sliender comes in. Bill is a senior fellow of Self-Evident Convention Analysis at the Bricklined Institute and the author of a recent column, Convention Bounce: Will Kerry Get A Convention Bounce?. He joined me in the skybox earlier to discuss his polling of the delegates.

LF: Welcome back, Bill. Fancy meeting you here.

WS: Thank you, LF. Great to be back - it's great to be back.

LF: Now the big star tonight was John Edwards, as he officially accepted the VP slot. What's been the reaction of the public so far to the addition of Edwards on the Kerry ticket?

WS: Well, so far I'd say the reaction has been mixed - which is to say, ambivalent. Mostly the response seems to break down along gender lines: a majority of women say they find Edwards earnest, articulate and caring, while men we've polled say they've resented him since high school. This divergence has even prompted a new slogan for the Republicans...Bush-Cheney: Steady, Responsible And Very Unlikely To Turn Up In Your Wife's Diary.

LF: Are the Democrats trying to play up a contrast between Edwards and the incumbent veep, Dick Cheney?

WS: Oh, I think so. Notice that Edwards is frequently photographed with his young children in a way that calls to mind the JFK "Camelot" days of the early '60s. Whereas this is the most flattering photo we could find of Vice President Cheney:




To be fair, the Vice President is reportedly very attractive to people who've seen him up-close and behind-doors in a secret energy task force meeting. Maybe not as photogenic as some, but to the oil industry executives I've talked to, he is a beautiful, beautiful man. I guess that really shows the intense partisan divide in this country.

LF: Speaking of partisan division, what's the sentiment of the delegates today? Is the feeling more pro-Kerry or anti-Bush?

WS: I would say it's a thin line between pro-Kerry and anti-Bush. But there's definitely a fair amount of animosity to the Republican incumbent. In my survey of convention-goers, I asked them to describe their feelings toward the president. These were the results:




Obviously, the challenge for the Democrats this November is to channel that visceral anger into victory at the polls rather than several "road rage" incidents. They've managed to do a pretty good job of it so far - at the convention this week, only one cable news correspondent has been publicly "fragged." You know, they're quiet, but you gotta watch out for that Montana delegation.

LF: On the subject of cable news, do you have any read on how the delegates feel about Fox News covering the convention?

WS: Yes, that was another question I asked. I wanted to know if the Democrats gathered here felt that outlets like Fox were legitimate news organizations or merely tools of the Republican party. Here's how they responded:




I have to say, in all my years as a pollster, I've never seen more unity among Democrats or felt greater fear for my personal safety. With this much anger on both sides, 2004 could be, quite literally, a bloodbath. What an exciting time for us political junkies!

LF: Thursday is John Kerry's acceptance address. How well does he have to do?

WS: He has to really hit it out of the park, and if possible, hit a home run. He has to deliver the speech of his life - that is, a speech better than any he's given in the sixty years he's been breathing. Can he do it? We'll find out very soon, if not sooner.

LF: Thank you for your insights, Bill. I hope we can do this again at the Republican convention.

WS: Thank you. I look forward to it - in fact, that's something I'm looking forward to.

More From Boston

Very exciting times. I've just spent a long day chasing Teresa Heinz Kerry around town, hoping she'd tell me to "shove it". I guess I just wasn't annoying enough. Well, Mrs. Kerry, even if you don't become First Lady, we'll always have a court-mandated 30-mile radius.

The fun didn't end there. Tonight, I climbed down from the Lomblog skybox high above the Fleet Center to actually mingle with some delegates:




As you can see, this was during the keynote address by Illinois State Senator Barak Obama. What a talent. This guy has so much charisma, I can easily see him becoming the first black president impeached by vindictive Republicans. I was struck by one part of his speech, when, describing the way commentators divide the nation by its colors on the 2000 election map, he said, "We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States." I understand the point he's making but this could be a concern for the Kerry campaign, as Mr. Obama has just effectively "outed" millions of people in the critical battlegrounds of Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri and Ohio. I just hope none of their parents were watching at home, and as tonight's festivities weren't carried live by any of the networks, that seems a pretty safe assumption. I'm not gay but believe me, I know what it's like to receive a "concerned" phone call from the folks, ever since I was caught on-camera in a crowd shot at a Pet Shop Boys concert. Luckily, our society is much more tolerant now than it was in my days as a roadie for Dead Or Alive.

As I mentioned in my last post, this place is packed with big names. You could light this whole convention just off the starpower gathered in this hall tonight, and it still wouldn't be enough to capture all the sweat dripping off Ted Kennedy's neck. For instance, I saw CBS newsman Dan Rather earlier. He told me these delegates appeared "happier than a pig slopping mud on a rained-on barn post." I have no idea what that means but as Dan has been covering these things a lot longer than I have, I must yield to his wisdom.

Fox News is also covering the DNC. However, they've been criticized for not actually airing many of the major speeches. Instead, they've had their network anchors and political analysts bantering over the oratory. A Fox executive I spoke with anonymously at a Vietnamese massage parlor this afternoon told me his team is absolutely committed to presenting non-partisan coverage of the convention. He said Fox will be the first network to broadcast live if any of the Democrats on the speakers' platform are beheaded by terrorists.

There you have it: Lomblog gets results!

LF At The DNC!

Yes, my friends, I have arrived! I am blogging to you live from the Democratic National Convention in Boston. I tell you, I once thought seeing the American political process up-close would be a bit like glimpsing Christina Aguilera without the make-up, but truly, this ol' democracy of ours is a natural beauty. And it's not just the balloons and colorful hats that have me all keyed up; this hall is crawling with celebs! Visiting the men's room this morning, I could swear the guy passed out in the stall next to mine was none other than Dr. Hunter S. Thompson himself! I only wish I could've gotten his autograph before the medics arrived.

Of course, it's not just me feelin' the love tonight. This is one very upbeat collection of donkeys. The delegates here are so confident of victory this November that not even performances by Jon Bon Jovi or Whoopi Goldberg would dampen the enthusiasm. These party activists really believe that if they work hard, get the message out and file affidavits on behalf of all 3,916,207 Florida Democrats, they can win this election. Honestly, the whole thing has the feel of a giant televised group-hug, but with extra-tight security. I do have to question the choice of "Johnny B. Goode" as a theme song for the Democrats this year. Yes, I know the two guys on the ticket are both named John but it seems like some of the lyrics - "He never ever learned to read or write so well/But he could play guitar just like a ringing bell" - are more apropos to President Bush and his education policies.

So what's the schedule for this week? Well, this evening features speeches by former Vice President Al Gore and Bill & Hillary Clinton in what the Dems are dubbing their "Tribute To Political Psychodrama" night. Then tomorrow, the keynote address by Illinois Senate candidate Barak Obama, who - if he's elected this fall - will be the first male African-American senator since either Reconstruction or Samuel L. Jackson in the last few Star Wars films.

Wednesday's a big night too, with the roll-call of the states and the official nominations for president and vice-president. Of course, it's a foregone conclusion that the candidates will be John Kerry and John Edwards, but there's still a chance that Fox News or the New York Post will call it for a Dennis Kucinich/John Hinkley, Jr. ticket. Then John Edwards addresses the delegates. He'll remind them of his humble background working in the textile mills with his father, his successful career as a trial attorney and the time he successfully sued his father for making him work in the textile mills.

Finally, the big night, when John Kerry himself accepts the nomination. Kerry advisors say they want to set a positive tone and keep Bush-bashing to a minimum. To that end, his speech will paint an optimistic vision of an America where children are better educated, health insurance is more affordable and Texas Air National Guard units aren't stocked with the n'eer-do-well sons of famous politicians.

Well, that's a look ahead...but for now, I've got some big-league political partying to do!

9-11 Report

On Thursday, the National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States (boy, is that a mouthful) issued its highly-anticipated 9-11 report. Though hardly conventional summer beach fare, it's certainly a page-turner and therefore the perfect candidate to commence LF's Book Club, a regular feature that I hope will do for literacy what my previous efforts have done to harm it. However, I can't say I enjoyed this volume as much as I had hoped.

Maybe my expectations were too high but when I see a book has ten authors and took nearly two years to complete, I guess I expect something a little tighter than a dense, disjointed 588 pages. To quote Richard Clarke, "Your government failed you" - and evidently, Creative Writing 101. As suspense, it lacks the professional craftsmanship of a Robert Ludlum or Tom Clancy and can't even compensate with a startling plot twist like the Warren Commission's "single-bullet" theory. What we're treated to instead is a tedious compendium of missed opportunities, tragic bumbling, and bureaucratic stasis. So the government can't catch the terrorists...tell us something we don't know! At least spice things up a bit with a few "Deep Throat"-style mystery characters, or maybe a chapter entitled, "You're So Vain, You Probably Think Your Negligence Was Personally Responsible For The Mushrooming of Al Queda."

Another flaw is the lack of a believable and sympathetic protagonist. Take a character that pops up about midway through the report, "President Bush." Does anyone really see this guy as Leader of the Free World? For much of his time in print, he doesn't even seem interested in the many nefarious terrorist plots being hatched around him. Then the attacks happen and presto! - he's magically transformed into a macho action hero fighting "the evil-doers"? Jack Ryan he ain't (and I don't mean the former Senate candidate that wanted to bang Seven-Of Nine in public). Guys, it's called character development - look into it.

What about the villains? Well, "Osama Bin Laden," with his riches and eccentric lifestyle, is certainly a classic baddie in the mold of Blofeld from the James Bond series. So why, for heaven's sake, is he allowed to repeatedly disappear from the main storyline??!! On one page, we read that "Bush" will capture OBL "dead or alive", but then several chapters pass with hardly any new "Bin Laden" action at all. Did the authors get lazy? Instead of fleshing out details on this fascinating 6'5" Arabian who travels from cave to cave, we're treated to a tiresome stand-off with a tinhorn Iraqi dictator that I'm almost certain is a rehash of something I read in the early Nineties. That, I'm afraid, is the essence of lazy writing. And don't get me started on the "Recommendations" section - if I wanted a how-to book, I'd buy Bob Vila.

By the end, with so many loose ends left to dangle, I get the sense the authors intend to spin this "War On Terror" thing into an indefinite series. Well, pardon me, 9-11 Commission, if I check out while you cash in. This is the last government report I share a sandy evening sunset with.

Lomblog Super-Summer Resumes

LF back again - didja miss me? Of course you did. In case you were wondering, I've just spent a few relaxing days apartment-sitting for Miss Courtney Love. We've been friends since my days as toastmaster du jour of the Seattle rock scene. Anyway, like everything with Courtney, this came up semi-unexpectedly, so I regret not being able to round up some guest bloggers in advance of this latest mini-vacation. But for those that think we're slowing down...in the words of Bachman Turner Overbite, you ain't seen nothin' yet!

Yes, we're just about to kick things into high gear. Tomorrow, I'll be bringing you my review of the newly-published 9-11 Commission Report (I can't wait to find out "whodunnit"). And next week begins our coverage of the Democratic National Convention. I'm really excited about this; this will be the first national convention I've covered that didn't primarily consist of people dressed up as Klingons. After that, the Olympics. Not sure I see a story there, but if it turns out there's a dark and hidden underbelly to professional athletics, you can bet I'll be the guy to find it. Finally, things come full circle early September with the Republican convention in NYC. It's an opportunity for all Americans to reflect upon the last three years and how much we've changed since the tragedy was first exploited. I can't wait.

Hoping your summer is as exciting as mine,

LF

Lomblog And Race

I don't publicly respond to reader e-mails very often, or even read them, but I recently received a message too sensitive and important for even me to ignore. It involves the issue of race. The e-mail comes from an African-American Lomblog visitor who calls himself "Concerned":

Dear LF,

Is it just me or is your site a little lacking in diversity? It seems like the only black in Lomblog is in the color scheme of your template. The discussion of issues involving racial minorities is always in the most superficial manner possible, though to be fair, this isn't different from your discussion of most topics. I'm certainly not accusing you of racism but it seems like Lomblog and Lombaire Fan orbit an ultra-privileged, lily-white netherworld where blacks and browns don't exist - except, quite literally, as cartoons. Have you considered taking any steps to make your site more welcoming and relevant to non-whites?

Concerned

First, let me just say this is exactly the kind of constructive criticism I appreciate. In fact, if I received more e-mails like this from my readers, I wouldn't have so many of you on block.

But in response - where to begin. "An ultra-privileged, lily-white netherworld" - oh, how I wish! Honestly, I am very in tune with the black community, enough that I don't feel the need to flaunt this connection like, say, the editors of Vibe. I know the first defense any white person accused of insensitivity resorts to is that old "some of my best friends..." bit, but truly, some of my best friends - as of this writing - are black. So your concerns, Concerned, are completely unfounded in my case, though in general, very well-founded.

If it seems I inhabit a world where African-Americans and Hispanics don't exist...well, this is called "the Internet." Sadly, there are probably more Americans of the Hobbit persuasion blogging on a regular basis than prominent minorities. Until the digital divide is bridged, I would personally favor an affirmative action program for bloggers who come from historically disadvantaged groups (but please, no special favors for people whose #1 disadvantage is "being targeted by the Borg"). Of course, such a proposal is not without controversy; no doubt there would be angry cries of "reverse discrimination" from the hordes of socially inept, acne-ridden, pajama-clad malcontents that make up roughly 80-90% of the blog-publishing world. For now, I will never hesitate to speak out on minority issues that I have at least a half-understanding of. But I think you would agree there are numerous others offline who can (and do) write about black America far more incisively than I, whether it's Toni Morrison, Michael Eric Dyson, or Abigail Van Buren.

Thanks again for your e-mail, Concerned. It's rare to see this kind of frank exchange on race anywhere in society today. I'm very proud if my oversight of your community is what helped make it possible.

It's A Bad Thing



July 16, 2004 will forever be known as the day the American judicial system jumped the shark. Like a stylishly modern-day Joan of Arc, Martha Stewart has been burned at the stake, with little more than courtroom sketch artists and news agency photogs on-hand to record the tragedy. Five months in jail - for what? Lying to investigators or introducing style and elegance to Kmart? I'm proud to say I did everything humanly possible to stop this travesty, but I am but one man with one copier. Despite my best efforts, the wheels of justice have rolled over Martha like an off-road minivan on a busy suburban thoroughfare. Maybe this is part of the Feds' top-secret plan to redecorate Camp X-Ray but that strikes me as unlikely. Not that there's any doubt of Martha's willingness to sacrifice for her country.

Only a few brave commentators, in addition to myself, have acknowledged what really happened here: MS was tried and convicted for the crime of being "too perfect." The jury box is now where the envious go to get their vengeance. And what's next - Katie Couric hung in the public square? Oprah and Steadman as the next Julius and Ethel Rosenberg? Nicole Kidman or Charlize Theron branded with a scarlet "TP"? Trust me, this is not a new lament; I've seen the success ladder from both ends and that ol' green demon has never reared its head out of me, except possibly in the case of Adam Ant. If someone is successful, I just assume they're my intellectual, creative and moral superior. If not...then something would have to be pretty screwed-up about this society of ours, wouldn't it?

I'm not saying Martha Stewart, to pick one example, shouldn't go to jail just because she's famous. What I'm saying is, the burden of proof has to be much higher when you're sentencing someone with a longterm syndication contract. Those who think there are no real-life repercussions to Martha's loss of freedom should check some Middle American flower beds in a couple of months. Soon we will know what it was like just after the fall of the Weimar Republic.

Of course, not all hope is lost. Martha's golden tresses will again be touched by the sunlight of liberty someday. That day may be even sooner than we think, if any fan finds her recipe for Coconut Almond With A Dash Of Metal File. Until then, even those who didn't follow her stock advice are poorer for her absence.

Our Three Month Anniversary!

Can you believe it? We've passed the big 3.0! When I first started posting, I never dreamed that Lomblog would achieve what it has so far. My only goals back then were to entertain my friends, get listed in a few search engines, and maybe hook up with one of Professor Juan Cole's "sloppy seconds." Little did I know that we would create a dedicated army of "Lomblogies", many of whom are now pondering runs for Congress and/or moving out of the garage. I couldn't have done it without you. Well, I could, but it would've been much harder.

So how shall we celebrate this milestone? Well, you could always drop some coin into the Lomblog piggy bank. Or contribute to my favorite charity. Or buy something from my wish list. Just know that your support means a lot to me. It's been a great balm knowing I have a group of fans loyal enough to stick with me through ups, downs, and the inevitable revelations of my bizarre lovelife and massive drug use. With any luck, we'll be hitting the sixth month mark any day now!

Many happy return visits,

LF

Facing Down My Foes

You may have noticed I've kept a relatively low profile lately - blogging less and attending far fewer star-studded Hollywood premieres. No, I don't have mono; I'm being stalked. Online, but just to be safe, I've also stopped sampling cheeses in the supermarket. And why? Yet another attempt to intimidate me from expressing my views.

If anyone wants to see how low the public discourse has sunk since I first started this blog, just take a look at this:



Yes, this is the web banner for a new blog (which I refuse to link to, for obvious reasons) entirely devoted to attacking me. Isn't that sick? Of all the people on the 'Net whose words deserve obsessive focus, it's no false modesty to say I probably rank somewhere between Andrew Sullivan and the writers of "furrie" porn. If that isn't redundant. And the worst part is I'm pretty sure the creator(s) of this site is someone(s) I've never even met! What kind of disturbed individual does that - publish an entire hate-site because you disagree with a writer's politics, rather than to air a petty personal grievance? It's this kind of social pathology that makes me glad there are still so many barriers to more widespread web access.

As for the charge that I tell "lies", well, this is obviously someone who hasn't checked the site in a while. Sure, we're not one of those hyped-up corporate-funded blogs with a Lexis/Nexis subscription and a fact-checker, but we do our best. The innocent mistakes of our early days - like referring to UN chief Kofi Annan as "that black guy from The Electic Company" - are long-gone. And when did I ever write that I "hate America"? The only time I can ever remember those words coming out of my mouth were a few years ago when I was introducing Frankie Munoz at the Nickelodeon Kid's Choice Awards. Like many others, 9-11 changed me. Since that day, I haven't donated a cent to the PLO. Not to mention, I changed my ringtone from "It's Raining Men" to "American Pie." Accuse me of anything you want, but never let it be said that I lack sensitivity.

I suppose I should wear this opposition as a badge of honor, instead of cowering in my apartment and making inquiries about dual citizenship. But does the American sensible center that has claimed me as primary spokesman really need its first virtual martyr? I think not. From now on, I will be blogging mostly from an undisclosed location. However, I will still be available for college speaking engagements.

Interview With Tom Ridge

Yesterday, Homeland Security head Tom Ridge said that Al Queda is plotting a major attack in advance of this year's election. But Ridge has come under criticism for the decidely non-specific nature of the threat announcement. As primarily an ardent prober of our nation's public officials, I invited Ridge to appear on my Washington-based webcast, This Week With Lombaire Fan. For those that missed it, a transcript follows.



LF: Thank you for joining us, Secretary Ridge. So exactly how serious is this threat?

TR: Oh, it's very serious. Those other warnings we've issued - they didn't mean much to me, I was just kinda going through the motions. But this one has me really concerned.

LF: And why is that?

TR: Because the notion of Al Queda interfering with our election process...well, it just goes straight to the heart of who we are. The idea that terrorists could impact our elections should shock and appall any American who believes in democracy, as well as those of us in the Bush administration.

LF: In the hours since you held your last press conference, has any more information been gathered on a possible date or scenario in which these attacks might occur?

TR: That's the thing: we just don't know when another Al Queda strike might take place. It could happen anytime. It could happen during the Democratic convention; it could happen during the debates. It could happen if a major figure from the administration is indicted. It could happen when one of the Bush twins goes "clubbing"; it could happen when Fahrenheit 9-11 is released on DVD. We can do a lot but we can't predict the future. All we can do is keep the American people informed of what we do or do not know is happening, and when it might or might not happen.

LF: Why would terrorists try to influence our elections?

TR: Simply put, they don't understand that the United States is different. We're not cowed by their actions, the way the Spanish were. This administration has a 100% commitment that the terrorists - ie. Kerry/Edwards - will not win.

LF: Excuse me...are you equating the Democratic ticket with the terrorists?

TR: No, no; I'm speaking of the Kerry/Edwards branch of Al Queda. These are two terrorist ring leaders we've just recently uncovered - Mohammed Kerry and Mustaf Edwards. They've adopted fairly common American surnames and have moved covertly through the country ever since the Iowa caucuses. We don't know very much about them, except their desire to wage jihad and repeal the president's tax cuts. These gentlemen are avowed enemies of the United States. Of course, they are not to be confused with the president's political opponents, though that confusion is certainly understandable.

LF: What kinds of precautions would you advise Americans take during this sensitive pre-election period?

TR: Simple: if you plan to engage in electoral activity and you have safety concerns, consult with us at the Department of Homeland Security and we'll tell you what to do. For instance, I've already spoken with several delegates hoping to attend the Democratic convention in Boston later this month. I've told them that with so many suspected terrorists in the area, it's best not to do anything that might antagonize them. So if you're a female delegate, wear a long flowing robe that covers your body from head to toe.

LF: And a male delegate?

TR: Grow a long beard and sport a stylish kufiyah or some other traditionally Islamic headgear. Also, it might be best - from a safety standpoint only - to have lots of placards and banners on the convention floor that say things like, DEATH TO AMERICA, THE US HAD IT COMING and OSAMA/YASIR '04. If they see a convention like that on Fox News or Al-Jazeera, they certainly won't view Boston as the right target for attack.

LF: What about the Republican convention?

TR: The Republican convention is in New York, in September - I don't see any safety concerns there.

LF: What about Election Day itself?

TR: Well, clearly, there's nothing these barbarians would like more than to disrupt our democratic process on voting day. Fortunately, there's a very simple way for Americans to avoid such a tragedy.

LF: What's that?

TR: Don't vote. Especially if you're an African-American, a single, college-educated working woman or a regular listener of National Public Radio. These are exactly the people Al Queda would like to recruit. Exposing yourself to the pampleteers of the "Kerry/Edwards" team is very dangerous indeed. Why chance it? Just spend Election Day at home, maybe catch up on some reading, take a nice long nap until 7 or 8 pm and at night's end, sleep soundly knowing the threat has passed.

LF: One more question: with all this concern afoot, why has the alert level not been raised from yellow?

TR: In this instance, the yellow is very appropriate. Think of it as a traffic light; we're saying to the millions of people that might participate in elections this year, "Be cautious." When you close the curtains and prepare to cast your vote, you're taking your life in your own hands. Don't say I didn't warn you.

The Ticket

It's official now: John Kerry has chosen John Edwards for the vice-presidency. I guess a lot of us saw this coming; the way they would giggle and pass notes to each other during the recent primary debates gave it all away. Our sources say the decision was finally sealed on Thursday, when Kerry appeared on the Senate floor and sent this word to Edwards through his aides: "John, would you like to be my vice president? If yes, fly to Boston on Sunday and raise thousands of dollars for me." Now, the die is cast, and the Democrats haven't seen this much excitement since the Clintons went to counseling.

But the drama kept us guessing right to the very end. When the Kerry campaign announced on Friday that it would reveal the VP choice through an e-mail, many of us hardened political scribes decided to camp out in front of the computer until we had a definitive answer. After several Pepsi-soaked hours, the message had still not arrived, but I pieced together all the available clues that had accumulated in my inbox overnight and made what turned out to be slightly erroneous call:



It just seemed to make too much sense. I read that Kerry had ordered up new decals in honor of his future running mate; what other selection could possibly inspire the normally stolid Massachusetts senator to experiment with body art? I was also aware the Kerry team made all applicants undergo a rigorous background check. What better contrast with the secretive Bush administration than to release the results in a streaming video available to anyone willing to share their credit card details? Certainly, "Dick" Cheney would never do that.

But the biggest clue? When I received an e-mail asking how much I would give for "a little something extra to make your woman happy", I just assumed the Kerry people had stumbled upon a whole new fundraising strategy, and who else could drive the point home with real credibility? My bad...next time, I am definitely going to check the headers. Anyway, at least I saw through all that Paris Hilton business; post 9-11, no way would Kerry pick a blonde.

Or maybe I was right all along. Perhaps Lee was the choice but he took offense at being part of a "short list." Or perhaps Kerry was afraid of being overshadowed. But that's water under the bridge. All I can say now is:

Kerry/Edwards '04/Edwards/Lee '12!

Happy Fourth Of July!



LombaireFan is away this weekend, celebrating the holiday with his parents at the Veterans of Foreign Film Studies retirement lodge in Madison, Wisconsin. But he will return shortly with exciting stories like these:

"Online Dating Tips: When's The Best Time To Reveal Your True Gender?"

"Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Rock Songs Mislabeled on Kazaa"

"Bangkok Blues: The Outsourcing of Illicit Sex"

"Exciting Scientific Discoveries With No Practical Benefit"

Until then, enjoy the illegal fireworks!

A Response To My Critics

It may surprise you, but Lomblog is not the be-all and end-all of my writing talent. As previously mentioned, I also have a burgeoning career as a freelance magazine contributor. While the bulk of my writings have been received with hearty acclaim, not all have escaped the harsh light of nitpicking online critics. The general charge is that I am an ideological chameleon, and that my writing is a triumph of style over substance - if that. I wish to respond to these claims, but let me first present the so-called "evidence."

The following is my original review of Fahrenheit 9-11, which was published and then retracted by The Nation:

Masterpiece. There is simply no other word for this incredible motion picture. If you're not watching it right now, you should be. If you're reading this and you haven't seen the film yet, drop what you're doing and speed to the nearest theater. If no theaters in your area are showing it, picket them. If your local theater has the film but they're closed for the night, blowtorch your way in and demand they run the projector.

If you see only one film this year, make it Fahrenheit 9-11. If you see only two films this year, make it Fahrenheit and some art-house crap about Aborigines. Everyone in America should see this film - yes, ignore the "R" rating arbitrarily slapped on by the fascists of the MPAA board and take the children. If they recoil, cut their allowance and ask them what Shrek or Spiderman are doing to end the war in Iraq.

There can be little doubt that this movie will devastate George Bush's re-election campaign, especially among Republicans and Independents who walk in by mistake. In the showing I attended, the air was so thick with the promise of overthrow I almost mistook the popcorn dust for teargas. I haven't felt this much hope for the future since the Sixties, or the cancellation of Dr. Laura's TV show. Michael Moore is simply the only American filmmaker today whose work comes close to compensating for the large-scale crimes against humanity perpetrated by people of his race and gender.

A few days later, I wrote another essay on the film for National Review:

Fahrenheit 9-11? More like Fat 'N' Height/Weight Not Proportionate. Let's face it: Michael Moore has no right to speak out on public issues as long as he refuses to disavow his own obesity. To not do so is as irresponsible as the editors of this esteemed publication printing my review before I've sobered up, showered and left some cab fare on the dresser. Every bit of this propagandistic swill is simply more aid-and-comfort to the Islamo-Fascists and their amen corner in Congress, the Democratic party and the gospel recording industry. Why I can just picture Moore - the burly, stubble-flecked minstrel of the radical Left - prancing up and down in blackface, singing "Can I Get A Witness?" at the trial of Saddam Hussein. Or perhaps I need more time to dry out.

No matter. The salient point remains: Moore is overweight. And unlike Rush Limbaugh, he lacks even the self-awareness necessary to get addicted to prescription painkillers. Every frame of this loathsome, squalid, risible, altogether ooky partisan tripe is slanted against the president. He implies that the Chief Executive of the world's most powerful democracy doesn't take his job seriously by featuring footage of Mr. Bush joking on the golf course after a anti-terror statement. What a double standard - not to mention double chin; everyone knows if Clinton had done this, it would've been hailed as charming, and if Lincoln had been similarly filmed, he would've been commended for his time travel skills. He criticizes the president for continuing to read to children in a pre-arranged photo op seven minutes after being informed of the 9/11 attacks. What would he have the president do - bust out of the classroom like an action star and say, "I'm sorry, I have to leave now, I've just been informed the country's under attack"? Maybe he-man antics of that sort would satisfy Moore and his Hollywood buddies but I'm glad the president showed some calm under pressure. And one has to ask, what does Michael Moore hate Moore (sic) - America, or our children's literacy? If the president can be faulted for anything, it's for reading "My Pet Goat" instead of George Orwell, but a slovenly, faux populist rube like Moore probably thinks Orwell is the old guy that makes that delicious buttered popcorn.

Concern for the troops? Moore wouldn't know concern for the troops if it bit him in his overripe posterior and then promptly died of lard poisoning. But I hope I haven't obscured my point with personal attacks. I simply can not sit back and allow someone to steal the spotlight from me with lies. The widespread deification of Moore is even more deplorable than that of Mother Teresa (as uncovered in my first book, The Publicity Whore of Calcutta) and Dr. Seuss (as exposed in my second, Horton Hears A Lie). I will have even more to say on this topic in my next volume, Letters To A Young Asshole.

Have I mentioned Moore's fat?

(Photo of author withheld by request)

To my critics: haven't you ever heard of nuance? Isn't it possible to have a slightly different opinion of something - say, a politically charged documentary - over time than you did initially? Is my thinking not allowed to evolve over years, months, even days? You also have a little something to learn about the magazine business: I can't write the same article for every publication I submit my pieces to. I have to carefully tailor my work to the specifications of each journal's audience. I would never think of writing the same words for Reader's Digest as I would for Spunk World (and wait 'till you see the review I've written for them!).

For the record, I still haven't seen Fahrenheit. The guy I paid a buck-fifty to camcord it hasn't turned up on Kazaa yet.