I don’t really want to write anything about the Katie Couric interview with Sarah Palin, except to reiterate what I said here. In short, I think that politics deforms people (the less generous among us could argue that deformed people get into politics). And the ambition that gets driven into politicians doesn’t allow, say, the unprepared to say “no” to opportunities when they really, really should. It’s simply too late for Palin. She’s been hardwired to go for the top, she’s not prepared, and it’s all coming apart at the seams. It’s embarrassing, and I’ve never really been able to enjoy watching someone get embarrassed. Even Kathleen Parker is asking her to bow out.
What I do want to write about is Studs Terkel, one of my personal heroes, an oral historian and journist like no other, and one of the most important people I’ve ever had the honor to meet. This week at Time Out Chicago we put up our Chicago Heroes issue, and I—with the invaluable help of web editor Scott’s Smith insane work ethic—put together a Salute to Studs. We have lots of editorial up there, including a profile I wrote last year, a look at his legacy in the arts, and what I think might be the most exhaustive bibliography of Studs’ work, along with loads of video and audio. I humbly ask that you please check it out sometime, whenever you like. And if you’re up at 7am (CT) on Sunday, I’ll be on the radio with Rick Kogan, talking about it all.
I haven’t seen this linked to anywhere, I don’t think. Maybe it’s because of Wall Street, or because the polls are ticking upward for our boy. But Michael Chabon wrote one of the all-time great essays on Obama for the New York Review of Books. Although, now that I’ve written that sentence, I think it’s true, but misleading. It’s actually a great dissection of a political convention (which, did they happen? I barely remember now).
It’s worth your time.
I wondered if Obama ever wearied of the sham and extravagance and artifice. I wondered if his writerly ear rebelled at the nightly catalog of corn, platitudes, and dead language, or if perhaps the pragmatism so routinely underestimated by Obama’s opponents took satisfaction in the seamless forcefield of message generated nightly by the well-vetted objects of his speechwriters’ attentions. Or maybe, I thought, with his lyric grasp of US history, Obama enjoyed as much as I did the interstitial bits of procedural prose (“Ladies and gentlemen, fellow Democrats and friends, we bring you greetings from the great state of Georgia, the thirteenth state in our union, birthplace of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr….where we look to the future with an optimistic gaze…we, the empire state of the South, the jewel of the South, the great state of Georgia…), scenting the convention with their panatela reek of mock pomposity, the all but inaudible echoed trumpetings of the electoral past.
Over at Time Out Chicago, we’re gearing up for a big, hometown issue, coming this Thursday. I very rarely promote TOC stuff here, largely because I figure that those who want to read it already are. But check out a couple of the videos tied into our upcoming issue. Some cool people involved:
I’ve noticed throughout the campaign that Obama’s and McCain’s ads have differed in one, fundamental way: Obama’s canned “I approve this message” bit comes at the beginning of the ad, and McCain’s at the end. I can see arguments for choosing one or the other. The last thing you see or hear in a McCain ad is the man himself, which obviously helps with name and face recognition and repetition. But I thought Obama’s placement was a little savvier. Approve the message, then let your voice-over guy do all the nasty work, and let the icky feeling stick to McCain. When McCain’s campaign runs a dirty ad, the last thing you see is McCain’s face, which makes it much easier to associate him with the sleaze. Take the infamous “sex ed” ad:
Is it really a good idea, after making such a prurient attack, to have a grinning McCain saying how much he approves of it?
I bring all of this up because today I noticed Obama shirked his M.O. In an ad in Michigan, he “approves” at the end of the spot (It’s a pretty silly ad, criticizing McCain for owning three foreign cars out of 13, though the subtle “rich guy” dig is nice). But instead of the final “approval” being a still of a smiling Obama, it’s a live shot of the candidate in safety goggles, shaking hands with auto workers. It’s a savvy switch because, although the ad is negative on McCain, the message is “He doesn’t want to help you, Michigan.” And then there’s helpful, hand-shaking Barack closing the deal:
I’m no advertising guy, but for some reason this fascinates me. But does it make a difference? I have no idea.
Back from Omaha, and the (Downtown) Omaha Lit Fest. I dare say it was even more fun than last year. The reading at the Slowdown was a blast. Slowdown is a gorgeous venue, the kind I wish we had here in Chicago (i.e. there’s a stage AND windows). And I met loads of cool people, including Starlee Kine, Hesse McGraw and Jonis Agee.
So now I’m finally trying to catch up on the collapse of our economy, which is a funny thing to be behind on. The entire dialogue is blowing my mind, how the Treasury is acting as though we owe it to the bailed-out banks, and they should be allowed to hold us hostage. This is a really unformed opinion on the matter, at the moment, largely because I’ve never really understood anything more than savings accounts.
