# sunya Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 11:59 am
I think this song captured audience and fans for David. His performance reveals lots of sex appeal here and a depth of emotion and vulnerability that is well hidden by the nerd he projects and by a type of masculine facade young men in America often adopt sometimes in their teens that can ruin them for the rest of their lives.
During David’s performances from here forward he sheds some of that and someone very appealing crawls out… Wonderful and winning transformation!
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
A Dozen Ways to Get to Know Your Real Partner
The Signs Are All Around You
By Stacy D. Phillips
Special to Yahoo! Personals
Updated: May 20, 2008
In my line of work -- family law -- I often hear the same old refrain when my client explains to me why they split from their significant other. It goes like this, "I guess I didn't really know my partner after all." You might ask, "How could that be?" How could you have an intimate relationship with someone only to wake up one day to find out that the person you fell in love with is not the person they turned out to be?
I believe there are at least a dozen ways to know who someone really is -- indicators -- and if we do an inventory early on, we might stand a better chance of getting to know the real person before we fully commit. The following "observance" suggestions are important ones to make in the early stages of any relationship because each offers insight into habits, patterns, and behaviors. As you ponder these observations, know that there is no right or wrong; it's a matter of acceptance. Sometimes we have to accept quirks and differences as part of the give-and-take process. As you do your assessment, however, the goal is to decide whether or not you can live with or without your real partner.
Here are the dozen indicators:
1. Protocol: First or Second? Whether it's walking through a door, ordering dinner, or taking a bite out of the freshly baked cookies you have made together, if your partner always have to go first this could indicate self- centeredness. Are you willing to always be the giver?
2. Politics: Liberal or Conservative? How your partner views what is right or wrong in a political sense tells you a lot about his deep inner beliefs about society, and ultimately, the way he will approach your relationship issues. Will his views cause a rift in your relationship?
3. Television: Sitcoms or News? If his tendency is to watch "escape" TV programs versus "newsy/event" oriented ones, you can learn a lot about one's intellect. Do you want a mate who can keep up with your every day interest in what is going on in the world or a person you can run away with to avoid the world we live in?
4. Money: Flash or Stash? If your partner throws money around while dating, he might well be reckless with your joint finances when you move in together. Do you want to hook up with a tightwad or splurger?
5. Stress: Freak or Peak? Under Pressure, does he go to pieces or rise to the top of his game? If the answer is the former, every minor incident in your relationship might become a crisis. Do you like a lot of drama?
6. Conversation: About You or Him? As you first get to know each other does he always talk about himself first or you? If he is usually the topic priority do not expect that to change. Can you subordinate yourself to the world revolving around him?
7. Pets: Warm or Aloof? Believe it or not, the way in which he treats animals will not be dissimilar to how he treats your children. How do you want him to treat your loved ones?
8. Communication: Listens or Ignores? If you have something you want to talk about and he tunes you out as a general rule, can you cope?
9. Strangers: Kind or Rude? How he treats those they do not know (waiters, grocery clerks) often reflects on how he will treat people in general, including you, shortly after the glow wears off.
10. Priorities: Family or Work? You can tell almost immediately where a person's preferences lie in terms of what comes first (a family member's illness or a business trip) by the choices he makes when faced with an "either/or" situation. Do you care if he leaves on the next plane to present the such-and-such report if you or the kids have pneumonia?
11. Appearance: Fat or Fit? How he regards his appearance screams loudly about his sense of self-esteem. Those who eat sensibly, workout reasonably, and who take pride in their appearance are the ones who have a great sense of self. Does he really have self-confidence or might it be a front?
12. Faith: Strong or Weak? If you want a peak at his soul, learn more about his spirituality, or lack of it. What a person believes deep down is often what shapes the way in which they conduct their day-to-day affairs. What is your mate's "words to live by?"
Stacy D. Phillips, who represents mostly celebrity and high-net worth individuals, is the managing partner at Phillips, Lerner, Lauzon and Jamra, LLP in Century City, California, and the author of "Divorce: It's All About Control -- How to Win the Emotional, Psychological and Legal Wars." Her web site is controlyourdivorce.com
By Stacy D. Phillips
Special to Yahoo! Personals
Updated: May 20, 2008
In my line of work -- family law -- I often hear the same old refrain when my client explains to me why they split from their significant other. It goes like this, "I guess I didn't really know my partner after all." You might ask, "How could that be?" How could you have an intimate relationship with someone only to wake up one day to find out that the person you fell in love with is not the person they turned out to be?
I believe there are at least a dozen ways to know who someone really is -- indicators -- and if we do an inventory early on, we might stand a better chance of getting to know the real person before we fully commit. The following "observance" suggestions are important ones to make in the early stages of any relationship because each offers insight into habits, patterns, and behaviors. As you ponder these observations, know that there is no right or wrong; it's a matter of acceptance. Sometimes we have to accept quirks and differences as part of the give-and-take process. As you do your assessment, however, the goal is to decide whether or not you can live with or without your real partner.
Here are the dozen indicators:
1. Protocol: First or Second? Whether it's walking through a door, ordering dinner, or taking a bite out of the freshly baked cookies you have made together, if your partner always have to go first this could indicate self- centeredness. Are you willing to always be the giver?
2. Politics: Liberal or Conservative? How your partner views what is right or wrong in a political sense tells you a lot about his deep inner beliefs about society, and ultimately, the way he will approach your relationship issues. Will his views cause a rift in your relationship?
3. Television: Sitcoms or News? If his tendency is to watch "escape" TV programs versus "newsy/event" oriented ones, you can learn a lot about one's intellect. Do you want a mate who can keep up with your every day interest in what is going on in the world or a person you can run away with to avoid the world we live in?
4. Money: Flash or Stash? If your partner throws money around while dating, he might well be reckless with your joint finances when you move in together. Do you want to hook up with a tightwad or splurger?
5. Stress: Freak or Peak? Under Pressure, does he go to pieces or rise to the top of his game? If the answer is the former, every minor incident in your relationship might become a crisis. Do you like a lot of drama?
6. Conversation: About You or Him? As you first get to know each other does he always talk about himself first or you? If he is usually the topic priority do not expect that to change. Can you subordinate yourself to the world revolving around him?
7. Pets: Warm or Aloof? Believe it or not, the way in which he treats animals will not be dissimilar to how he treats your children. How do you want him to treat your loved ones?
8. Communication: Listens or Ignores? If you have something you want to talk about and he tunes you out as a general rule, can you cope?
9. Strangers: Kind or Rude? How he treats those they do not know (waiters, grocery clerks) often reflects on how he will treat people in general, including you, shortly after the glow wears off.
10. Priorities: Family or Work? You can tell almost immediately where a person's preferences lie in terms of what comes first (a family member's illness or a business trip) by the choices he makes when faced with an "either/or" situation. Do you care if he leaves on the next plane to present the such-and-such report if you or the kids have pneumonia?
11. Appearance: Fat or Fit? How he regards his appearance screams loudly about his sense of self-esteem. Those who eat sensibly, workout reasonably, and who take pride in their appearance are the ones who have a great sense of self. Does he really have self-confidence or might it be a front?
12. Faith: Strong or Weak? If you want a peak at his soul, learn more about his spirituality, or lack of it. What a person believes deep down is often what shapes the way in which they conduct their day-to-day affairs. What is your mate's "words to live by?"
Stacy D. Phillips, who represents mostly celebrity and high-net worth individuals, is the managing partner at Phillips, Lerner, Lauzon and Jamra, LLP in Century City, California, and the author of "Divorce: It's All About Control -- How to Win the Emotional, Psychological and Legal Wars." Her web site is controlyourdivorce.com
The French Connection: Viva la France!
By Dave McCoy
MSN Movies Lead Editor
I was just finishing up my final dispatch when the word came down that the Cannes jury had made their award selections. Coincidentally, I was writing a rave review of the second to last film I saw Friday at the festival. It's called "Entre les murs" ("The Class"), directed by Laurent Cantet. It's passionate, pulsing with life and along with Nuri Bilge Ceylan's "Three Monkeys" the best film I saw at Cannes.
Apparently, the jury agreed with me.
In an unanimous decision, "The Class" just received the coveted Palme d'Or, which not only means the jury got it right, but in the process, ended 21 years of French failure and frustration at Cannes. The last French film to win the festival's top award was "Under the Sun of Satan" in 1987. That Cantet is among the best current French filmmakers (rent "Human Resources" or "Time Out" for proof), rather than a one-time knock off, is icing for a French nation hungry for a win. Jury president Sean Penn set the tone two weeks ago when he said the Palme d'Or winner would (and I'm paraphrasing) reflect what is going in the world i.e. a social or political work. "The Class" is definitely that. It's entirely set within the walls of in an inner-city Paris junior high school, either in a class room or a teacher's lounge. It's the anthesis of typical American maudlin underdog teacher-student movies, like "Stand and Deliver" and "Lean on Me," instead presenting school realistically, difficultly. Cantet made enit tirely with non-actors and it's easily the smartest, most authentic film about school I've ever seen. It's also hilarious (the kids could have collectively shared the acting award) and riveting, and delves into socio-political-racial issues (not to mention educational approaches) in naturalistic ways. Never does the film stoop to preachy, heavy-handed sentimentality. Hopefully the Palme means the film will find an audience in America. It has the potential to be a huge art house hit.
The jury also made me do the happy dance by awarding Ceylan the Best Director award for "Three Monkeys." Other winners included: two Italian films, "Gomorra" and "Il Divo" won second and third place prizes, respectively; the Dardenne brothers, who failed in their third attempt for a Palme d'Or, settled for Best Screenplay for "The Silence of Lorna"; Best Actress went to Sandra Corveloni for "Linha de Passe" and Best Actor to deserved Benicio del Toro for "Che." That award, plus special jury prize for Clint Eastwood and "Changeling," was the closest thing to an American win. Yanks were otherwise shut out. Also shut out was the well-received, visionary Israeli feature, "Waltz with Bashir." I guess the jury doesn't like animation.
For the rest of the list, click here.
There is an slight irony with "The Class" winning. Cannes wrapped up the weekend today, ending 10 weeks for misery and pain. I don't mean the event itself; I had a great time again (and no full body heat rash or food poisoning this time!). But, thematically, almost every film that played during the festival was more brutal than the one before it. If I go next year, remind me to bring Prozac. Hell, even what figured to be the "comedy" in the official competition group, Charlie Kaufman's "Synecdoche, New York," ended up being so black and bleak it left people gasping rather than chuckling. But, hey, this isn't the multiplex. Cannes often mirrors what's going on in the world. Pick up a newspaper; it's not pretty right now. Anywhere. So, for the jury to give its highest award to something difficult, yet with tinged of hope like "The Class"... it's a nice touch.
Final Thoughts
Before bidding adieu, a couple final observations on films I saw late in the festival...
"Synecdoche, New York" -- I mentioned Charlie Kaufman's directorial debut earlier (if you don't Know him, he is the screenwriter behind "Being John Malkovich," "Adaptation." and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind") but wanted to say a bit more. You rarely see ambition like this from a first-time filmmaker, but ambition doesn't make for great cinema. Have you seen "Southland Tales" yet? So, I give Kaufman a round of applause for ambition. The film is about theater director (Philip Seymour Hoffman, who is the best actor on the planet right now) who is both physically and mentally breaking down. He receives grant money and decides to create a play of, well, life. He rebuilds New York City, hires thousands of actors to play real people, including himself and everyone he knows... and then hires more actors to play the lives of the actors, and so on. The snake eats its tale here, pukes it up and re-eats it, over and over. It spans 30 years (maybe?), is non-linear and we're never sure whether we're in reality or fantasy (for example, Samantha Morton, Hoffman's object of desire, lives in a house perpetually on fire). It starts of promising but becomes an exhausting exercise over time. It's a big mess, but it's also very effective at times. It's blackly funny, but ultimately really bleak and tough to watch. It offers no hope, both within the confines of the very insular film (all inside Hoffman's head) or, really, in life either. We live, we struggle, we try to make sense of it all, but we simply die and with us any pretense that we matter or have anything to contribute or that will last. Good times.
"Of Time and The City" -- It won no awards (it wasn't in competition), but Terence Davies' comeback film (he was last seen in 2000, when his masterpiece, "The House of Mirth," tanked) was the most beloved movie at Cannes. It's Davies' 70 minute personal poem, of his life and memories, to his home city of Liverpool, and to a life slipping away. It's a mixture of newsreel footage and Davies' own filmed footage, a mixture of words from great writers and Davies' memories (he's so good, you can't tell them apart), and it's overwhelming.
During it, I had the moment of my festival. I was sitting next to a very old English couple. During the film, the man kept pointing to the screen in recognition of something he remembered. He often chuckled, said "oh my," or made a number of sounds. Davies' memories were his, on some level, and he too was looking back at his life. At one point, I laughed at one of Davies' many wry jokes. The man quickly turned to me and put his hand on my shoulder, looked at me, nodded and said something I couldn't understand, while pointing back at the screen. And at that moment, I became part of this man's memories, and in return he became part of my mine. In a movie theater, watching a film about memory and experience, two strangers shared a wave of camaraderie, all stemming from one artist's work about personal reflection. It was... the only word I can think of to describe it is holy. I may one day be old and watching a movie and reflecting back on my life. And when I do, that old man will be part of it... and he'll appear in my mind, with great tenderness, as newsreel footage. May, 2008. Cannes, France.
I had a lot of moments at Cannes this year, but it will be those 5 seconds forever etched in my mind. And people ask me why I spend so much time in movie theaters...
Au revoir...
Dave McCoy is lead editor for MSN Movies.
Write us at heymsn@microsoft.com
Sound off: Comment on this story
MSN Movies Lead Editor
I was just finishing up my final dispatch when the word came down that the Cannes jury had made their award selections. Coincidentally, I was writing a rave review of the second to last film I saw Friday at the festival. It's called "Entre les murs" ("The Class"), directed by Laurent Cantet. It's passionate, pulsing with life and along with Nuri Bilge Ceylan's "Three Monkeys" the best film I saw at Cannes.
Apparently, the jury agreed with me.
In an unanimous decision, "The Class" just received the coveted Palme d'Or, which not only means the jury got it right, but in the process, ended 21 years of French failure and frustration at Cannes. The last French film to win the festival's top award was "Under the Sun of Satan" in 1987. That Cantet is among the best current French filmmakers (rent "Human Resources" or "Time Out" for proof), rather than a one-time knock off, is icing for a French nation hungry for a win. Jury president Sean Penn set the tone two weeks ago when he said the Palme d'Or winner would (and I'm paraphrasing) reflect what is going in the world i.e. a social or political work. "The Class" is definitely that. It's entirely set within the walls of in an inner-city Paris junior high school, either in a class room or a teacher's lounge. It's the anthesis of typical American maudlin underdog teacher-student movies, like "Stand and Deliver" and "Lean on Me," instead presenting school realistically, difficultly. Cantet made enit tirely with non-actors and it's easily the smartest, most authentic film about school I've ever seen. It's also hilarious (the kids could have collectively shared the acting award) and riveting, and delves into socio-political-racial issues (not to mention educational approaches) in naturalistic ways. Never does the film stoop to preachy, heavy-handed sentimentality. Hopefully the Palme means the film will find an audience in America. It has the potential to be a huge art house hit.
The jury also made me do the happy dance by awarding Ceylan the Best Director award for "Three Monkeys." Other winners included: two Italian films, "Gomorra" and "Il Divo" won second and third place prizes, respectively; the Dardenne brothers, who failed in their third attempt for a Palme d'Or, settled for Best Screenplay for "The Silence of Lorna"; Best Actress went to Sandra Corveloni for "Linha de Passe" and Best Actor to deserved Benicio del Toro for "Che." That award, plus special jury prize for Clint Eastwood and "Changeling," was the closest thing to an American win. Yanks were otherwise shut out. Also shut out was the well-received, visionary Israeli feature, "Waltz with Bashir." I guess the jury doesn't like animation.
For the rest of the list, click here.
There is an slight irony with "The Class" winning. Cannes wrapped up the weekend today, ending 10 weeks for misery and pain. I don't mean the event itself; I had a great time again (and no full body heat rash or food poisoning this time!). But, thematically, almost every film that played during the festival was more brutal than the one before it. If I go next year, remind me to bring Prozac. Hell, even what figured to be the "comedy" in the official competition group, Charlie Kaufman's "Synecdoche, New York," ended up being so black and bleak it left people gasping rather than chuckling. But, hey, this isn't the multiplex. Cannes often mirrors what's going on in the world. Pick up a newspaper; it's not pretty right now. Anywhere. So, for the jury to give its highest award to something difficult, yet with tinged of hope like "The Class"... it's a nice touch.
Final Thoughts
Before bidding adieu, a couple final observations on films I saw late in the festival...
"Synecdoche, New York" -- I mentioned Charlie Kaufman's directorial debut earlier (if you don't Know him, he is the screenwriter behind "Being John Malkovich," "Adaptation." and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind") but wanted to say a bit more. You rarely see ambition like this from a first-time filmmaker, but ambition doesn't make for great cinema. Have you seen "Southland Tales" yet? So, I give Kaufman a round of applause for ambition. The film is about theater director (Philip Seymour Hoffman, who is the best actor on the planet right now) who is both physically and mentally breaking down. He receives grant money and decides to create a play of, well, life. He rebuilds New York City, hires thousands of actors to play real people, including himself and everyone he knows... and then hires more actors to play the lives of the actors, and so on. The snake eats its tale here, pukes it up and re-eats it, over and over. It spans 30 years (maybe?), is non-linear and we're never sure whether we're in reality or fantasy (for example, Samantha Morton, Hoffman's object of desire, lives in a house perpetually on fire). It starts of promising but becomes an exhausting exercise over time. It's a big mess, but it's also very effective at times. It's blackly funny, but ultimately really bleak and tough to watch. It offers no hope, both within the confines of the very insular film (all inside Hoffman's head) or, really, in life either. We live, we struggle, we try to make sense of it all, but we simply die and with us any pretense that we matter or have anything to contribute or that will last. Good times.
"Of Time and The City" -- It won no awards (it wasn't in competition), but Terence Davies' comeback film (he was last seen in 2000, when his masterpiece, "The House of Mirth," tanked) was the most beloved movie at Cannes. It's Davies' 70 minute personal poem, of his life and memories, to his home city of Liverpool, and to a life slipping away. It's a mixture of newsreel footage and Davies' own filmed footage, a mixture of words from great writers and Davies' memories (he's so good, you can't tell them apart), and it's overwhelming.
During it, I had the moment of my festival. I was sitting next to a very old English couple. During the film, the man kept pointing to the screen in recognition of something he remembered. He often chuckled, said "oh my," or made a number of sounds. Davies' memories were his, on some level, and he too was looking back at his life. At one point, I laughed at one of Davies' many wry jokes. The man quickly turned to me and put his hand on my shoulder, looked at me, nodded and said something I couldn't understand, while pointing back at the screen. And at that moment, I became part of this man's memories, and in return he became part of my mine. In a movie theater, watching a film about memory and experience, two strangers shared a wave of camaraderie, all stemming from one artist's work about personal reflection. It was... the only word I can think of to describe it is holy. I may one day be old and watching a movie and reflecting back on my life. And when I do, that old man will be part of it... and he'll appear in my mind, with great tenderness, as newsreel footage. May, 2008. Cannes, France.
I had a lot of moments at Cannes this year, but it will be those 5 seconds forever etched in my mind. And people ask me why I spend so much time in movie theaters...
Au revoir...
Dave McCoy is lead editor for MSN Movies.
Write us at heymsn@microsoft.com
Sound off: Comment on this story
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
[ All User Reviews ] Previous | 4 of 1814 | Next
Overall Grade: D
Story: D-
Acting: C
Direction: C
Visuals: B-
top 10 reasons why you shouldn't see this movie
by stanleyenge (movies profile) May 22, 2008
101 of 149 people found this review helpful
1. Spielberg is a genius, but his effort in this film was weak, rushed, and uninspired. Anyone who has studied filmmaking knows what I'm talking about.
2. The editing of the movie was not done with any true effort, passion, or creativity.
3. The writing was subpar and the plot was confusing and ridiculous. I heard sarcastic yawns from the audience many times during the movie.
4. The special effects, by today's standards and Spielberg's standards, were cut-rate and boring.
5. The cast had no chemistry whatsoever. The characters were not developed, and thus I could not connect to them. The female antagonist failed to inspire any fear or loathing. The Karen Allen character was wasted and misused. Indy and his son had zero bonding chemistry.
6. The violence was too tame. "Raiders" had gritting visuals that send chills down your spine. This latest Indy film was very tame and had to work hard for the PG rating.
7. The action sequences were very, very weak, especially when you consider the almost non-stop rush of "Raiders". In fact, I could chose one scene in the original "Raiders" (the truck scene, the bar shootout, the opening scene, or the final scene)and watch that over and over again for an hour and 45 minutes and be more entertained than watching the Crystal Skull in its entirety.
8. The locales were not exotic and the cinematography was half-rate.
9. The ESP E.T. storyline was absolutely stupid.
10. And lastly, father time has taken its toll. Karen Allen and Harrison Ford looked real old in this movie. In my teen years, I remember Karen Allen being one of the most naturally beautiful creatures to walk the earth, and Harrison was a rugged stud. Now, they just look old, and it makes me feel old, and uncomfortable, if not sad, at the ravages that Father Time has in store for all of us.
Alas, I will have to rent Raiders and get the bad taste out of my mouth
Overall Grade: D
Story: D-
Acting: C
Direction: C
Visuals: B-
top 10 reasons why you shouldn't see this movie
by stanleyenge (movies profile) May 22, 2008
101 of 149 people found this review helpful
1. Spielberg is a genius, but his effort in this film was weak, rushed, and uninspired. Anyone who has studied filmmaking knows what I'm talking about.
2. The editing of the movie was not done with any true effort, passion, or creativity.
3. The writing was subpar and the plot was confusing and ridiculous. I heard sarcastic yawns from the audience many times during the movie.
4. The special effects, by today's standards and Spielberg's standards, were cut-rate and boring.
5. The cast had no chemistry whatsoever. The characters were not developed, and thus I could not connect to them. The female antagonist failed to inspire any fear or loathing. The Karen Allen character was wasted and misused. Indy and his son had zero bonding chemistry.
6. The violence was too tame. "Raiders" had gritting visuals that send chills down your spine. This latest Indy film was very tame and had to work hard for the PG rating.
7. The action sequences were very, very weak, especially when you consider the almost non-stop rush of "Raiders". In fact, I could chose one scene in the original "Raiders" (the truck scene, the bar shootout, the opening scene, or the final scene)and watch that over and over again for an hour and 45 minutes and be more entertained than watching the Crystal Skull in its entirety.
8. The locales were not exotic and the cinematography was half-rate.
9. The ESP E.T. storyline was absolutely stupid.
10. And lastly, father time has taken its toll. Karen Allen and Harrison Ford looked real old in this movie. In my teen years, I remember Karen Allen being one of the most naturally beautiful creatures to walk the earth, and Harrison was a rugged stud. Now, they just look old, and it makes me feel old, and uncomfortable, if not sad, at the ravages that Father Time has in store for all of us.
Alas, I will have to rent Raiders and get the bad taste out of my mouth
Friday, May 23, 2008
IDOL SPOILER ALERT: David Cook Wins!
20. AnneMac - Wed May 21 7:28pm PDT
I was so afraid after Simon declared Archie the winner last night that for the first time, I had a phone in each hand and double-dialed for two solid hours until I literally passed out. I am so thrilled Cook won! I can't wait to buy his albums. His otherworldly voice gets right into the soul.
Report abuse
I was so afraid after Simon declared Archie the winner last night that for the first time, I had a phone in each hand and double-dialed for two solid hours until I literally passed out. I am so thrilled Cook won! I can't wait to buy his albums. His otherworldly voice gets right into the soul.
Report abuse
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Film Review: 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull'
Bottom Line: A wearying onslaught of action and effects gives Indy little chance to charm as he did in days of old.
By Kirk Honeycutt
Jan 1, 1900
Cannes, Out of Competition
CANNES -- What do you know, the film billed as a return of Indiana Jones turns out instead to be a sequel to "Close Encounters of the Third Kind."
Extraterrestrials and a spaceship mix it up with well-lit caves, tumbles over waterfalls and swings through the jungle that would make Tarzan gape. Director Steven Spielberg seems intent on celebrating his entire early movie career in "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." Whatever story there is, a murky journey to return a spectacular archeological find to its rightful home -- an unusual goal of the old grave-robber -- gets swamped in a sea of stunts and CGI that are relentless as the scenes and character relationships are charmless.
Article Templatehttp://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1119669402http://www.brightcove.com/channel.jsp?channel=769341148
"Crystal Skull" will have its huge audience when it opens worldwide Thursday. Indeed it had that audience the day the project was announced. What is disappointing to those who fondly remember "Raiders of the Lost Ark," lo those 27 years ago, is the loss of wit and romance. This film feels like work, whether it's poor Harrison Ford straining to keep pace with his younger self or Spielberg and writer David Koepp piling on the thrill-ride acrobatics that have only scant connection to the plot.
In the first 22 minutes, old Indy survives a kidnapping, shoot-outs, auto crashes inside a mysterious warehouse, a ride in a desert rocket and an A-bomb detonation. Spielberg is only getting warmed up.
The film never pauses to let these characters enjoy a drink or take each other's measure. Indy's original flame, Karen Allen's Marion Ravenwood, also makes a welcome return; she even has a surprise for Indiana -- yet this moment is lost in the forward momentum.
Losing his job during the Red Scare of the '50s, Indy is persuaded by young Mutt (Shia LaBeouf) -- who keeps those iconic '50s images flowing by arriving on a motorbike like Brando in "The Wild One" -- to take off on a vague adventure in South America to save his mother and retrieve the Crystal Skull of Akator.
This trip hooks the duo up with a spy (Ray Winstone) who changes sides every half-hour; a Soviet villain (Cate Blanchett) with close-cropped hair, black skin-tight fencing garb and absolutely no point in her villainy; and a crazy loon (John Hurt) who, like Kurtz in "Heart of Darkness," has been in the jungle too long.
Once the group possesses the Crystal Skull -- it does keep changing hands between Indy and the Soviet army -- no one seems to know quite what to do with it. But it has its uses: At different times, it opens doors, triggers cave machinery, wards off giant red ants and scares hostile natives. For all anyone knows, it might pay the bill at a fancy restaurant.
After about an hour, the film abandons any pretense of story for a rush through fights, chases, machine gun fire, scorpions, quicksand, monkeys, huge snakes and finally a secret city -- part Mayan, part Aztec, certain to become both a video game and amusement park attraction.
At no time does any of Indy's gang seem in real jeopardy. Bullets splash all around, but not even the brim of his fedora gets nicked. Waterfalls are mere dips in the water, collapsing ruins an excuse for free-exercise tumbles and the villains mere annoyances.
The actors are asked to do little more than look reasonably alert. This proves to be Indiana Jones' greatest challenge.
Production: Paramount Pictures, LucasFilm
Cast: Harrison Ford, Cate Blanchett, Karen Allen, Ray Winstone, John Hurt, Jim Broadbent, Shia LaBeouf.
Director: Steven Spielberg.
Screenwriter: David Koepp.
Story: George Lucas, Jeff Nathanson
Producer: Frank Marshall.
Executive producers: George Lucas, Kathleen Kennedy.
Director of photography: Janusz Kaminski.
Production designer: Guy Hendrix Dyas.
Music: John Williams.
Costume designer: Mary Zophres.
Editor: Michael Kahn.
Rated PG-13, 123 minutes.
By Kirk Honeycutt
Jan 1, 1900
Cannes, Out of Competition
CANNES -- What do you know, the film billed as a return of Indiana Jones turns out instead to be a sequel to "Close Encounters of the Third Kind."
Extraterrestrials and a spaceship mix it up with well-lit caves, tumbles over waterfalls and swings through the jungle that would make Tarzan gape. Director Steven Spielberg seems intent on celebrating his entire early movie career in "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." Whatever story there is, a murky journey to return a spectacular archeological find to its rightful home -- an unusual goal of the old grave-robber -- gets swamped in a sea of stunts and CGI that are relentless as the scenes and character relationships are charmless.
Article Templatehttp://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1119669402http://www.brightcove.com/channel.jsp?channel=769341148
"Crystal Skull" will have its huge audience when it opens worldwide Thursday. Indeed it had that audience the day the project was announced. What is disappointing to those who fondly remember "Raiders of the Lost Ark," lo those 27 years ago, is the loss of wit and romance. This film feels like work, whether it's poor Harrison Ford straining to keep pace with his younger self or Spielberg and writer David Koepp piling on the thrill-ride acrobatics that have only scant connection to the plot.
In the first 22 minutes, old Indy survives a kidnapping, shoot-outs, auto crashes inside a mysterious warehouse, a ride in a desert rocket and an A-bomb detonation. Spielberg is only getting warmed up.
The film never pauses to let these characters enjoy a drink or take each other's measure. Indy's original flame, Karen Allen's Marion Ravenwood, also makes a welcome return; she even has a surprise for Indiana -- yet this moment is lost in the forward momentum.
Losing his job during the Red Scare of the '50s, Indy is persuaded by young Mutt (Shia LaBeouf) -- who keeps those iconic '50s images flowing by arriving on a motorbike like Brando in "The Wild One" -- to take off on a vague adventure in South America to save his mother and retrieve the Crystal Skull of Akator.
This trip hooks the duo up with a spy (Ray Winstone) who changes sides every half-hour; a Soviet villain (Cate Blanchett) with close-cropped hair, black skin-tight fencing garb and absolutely no point in her villainy; and a crazy loon (John Hurt) who, like Kurtz in "Heart of Darkness," has been in the jungle too long.
Once the group possesses the Crystal Skull -- it does keep changing hands between Indy and the Soviet army -- no one seems to know quite what to do with it. But it has its uses: At different times, it opens doors, triggers cave machinery, wards off giant red ants and scares hostile natives. For all anyone knows, it might pay the bill at a fancy restaurant.
After about an hour, the film abandons any pretense of story for a rush through fights, chases, machine gun fire, scorpions, quicksand, monkeys, huge snakes and finally a secret city -- part Mayan, part Aztec, certain to become both a video game and amusement park attraction.
At no time does any of Indy's gang seem in real jeopardy. Bullets splash all around, but not even the brim of his fedora gets nicked. Waterfalls are mere dips in the water, collapsing ruins an excuse for free-exercise tumbles and the villains mere annoyances.
The actors are asked to do little more than look reasonably alert. This proves to be Indiana Jones' greatest challenge.
Production: Paramount Pictures, LucasFilm
Cast: Harrison Ford, Cate Blanchett, Karen Allen, Ray Winstone, John Hurt, Jim Broadbent, Shia LaBeouf.
Director: Steven Spielberg.
Screenwriter: David Koepp.
Story: George Lucas, Jeff Nathanson
Producer: Frank Marshall.
Executive producers: George Lucas, Kathleen Kennedy.
Director of photography: Janusz Kaminski.
Production designer: Guy Hendrix Dyas.
Music: John Williams.
Costume designer: Mary Zophres.
Editor: Michael Kahn.
Rated PG-13, 123 minutes.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Victory shows 'Idol' judges don't get it
Victory shows 'Idol' judges don't get it
Show’s staff often seems unsure about demographic of audience
COMMENTARY
By Craig Berman
MSNBC contributor
updated 11:02 p.m. ET, Wed., May. 21, 2008
Simon Cowell said on Tuesday night that David Archuleta had scored a knockout victory in the "American Idol" finale. Instead, the voters scored a TKO of their own, punching out the opinion of the "Idol" judges.
David Cook was crowned the winner of "Idol" on Wednesday, and it wasn't a nail-biter. Ryan Seacrest called the final margin of 56 percent to 44 percent a significant amount when it comes from a total of 97.5 million ballots. What had been seen as the closest competition in ages wound up being what appears to be the biggest rout ever, with Cook winning by 12 million votes.
Both were strong performers all season, with neither coming particularly close to elimination until the finale. This marked a big change from a year ago, when neither the winner, Jordin Sparks, nor runner-up Blake Lewis seemed a safe bet for stardom.
"For the first time ever, I don't really care who wins," Simon said on Wednesday. "I think you've both done terrific."
Judging by the vote totals, the audience cared a lot more than he did about the outcome. They just didn't share his opinion of who the winner should be.
Judges out of touch?
The judges declared Archuleta the champion-in-waiting on Tuesday, but their reasons for doing so may indicate that what the judges and producers are looking for in their "Idol" winner isn't what the audience wants.
Both singers excelled in their final performances, with Archuleta showing off his strong vocal abilities and Cook illustrating how he controls the stage and woos the audience. Neither did anything that would cause their supporters to lose faith.
But Simon in particular dinged Cook for picking a more up-tempo number for the "choose-a-random-song-by-an-unknown" portion of the event. It was true that Cook's choice didn't sound much like the usual sappy ballad that gets placed there. But it also might be true that nobody much likes the usual sappy ballads, and what they were looking for was something that sounded more like actual pop music.
Similarly, Simon criticized Cook's song choice of "The World I Know" by Collective Soul, since it wasn't a song Cook had previously performed. Archuleta, by contrast, chose to provide an encore of John Lennon's "Imagine," a song he'd done early in the season.
But hadn't everyone already heard Archuleta ace that song? He may have tried to remind the viewers of how he'd sounded when he was at his best, but Cook offered something other than the usual song selection. His fans apparently didn't think that he should lose credit for trying something new.
Perhaps sensing that the outcome was in doubt, Simon backtracked on Wednesday. "I want to congratulate both of you. I went back home to watch it, and it wasn't quite so clear-cut as we called it," he said.
The other judges agreed. "You dudes brought it down to the wire. I'm so happy that it's the two of you standing there," Randy said. "You're both winners, baby. Both."
And Paula, phrasing things in her own unique way, added, "You two are truly amazing. It's odd that it's called the finale when it's anything but the final — it's the beginning of the start of the destinies of your career. I'm so proud. And just remember sometimes you think it's all about winning but it's the things sometimes that we lose that remind us of how truly special we are as people."
Old-Timers' Day
Tuesday's erroneous prediction was easy to make for the judges, since the "Idol" staff sometimes seems to be unsure about which age demographic its winners will be targeting. At times, it seems like the show's production people and its fans aren't on the same musical wavelength.
Wednesday's show was more like an Old-Timers' game at Dodger Stadium than a celebration of the nation's newest pop star. Was anyone in the audience clamoring to see Donna Summer onstage for what seemed like forever? Or Bryan Adams? ZZ Top? Graham Nash? Apart from the person who booked Carrie Underwood, the Jonas Brothers and One Republic, does anybody in charge of scheduling the acts have a rolodex that's been updated since 1989?
Maybe the reason the youngsters aren't watching the show as much these days is because there's not much they can relate to musically, since the guest stars and themes are from their parents' and grandparents' day.
Between the veteran acts and the constant product placements for Fox movies and advertisers, it's a wonder that anyone was still tuning in for the result. The clips with Mike Myers alone served as a Scared Straight-esque video of the horrors that could await either finalist if they don't succeed in music … a lifetime of having to do shamelessly bad promotions for unabashedly bad films.
Finally, after two hours of forgettable television, the payoff finally came when Ryan Seacrest announced the winner. For David Cook, who originally went to the auditions only to support his brother, it was confirmation that he'd built a strong enough fan base to veto Simon, Randy and Paula and take the crown.
The "Idol" folks can only hope that after a season that featured mostly guest acts from the distant past, they found a champion who can become a top act in the present.
Craig Berman is a writer in Washington, D.C.
© 2008 MSNBC Interactive
Show’s staff often seems unsure about demographic of audience
COMMENTARY
By Craig Berman
MSNBC contributor
updated 11:02 p.m. ET, Wed., May. 21, 2008
Simon Cowell said on Tuesday night that David Archuleta had scored a knockout victory in the "American Idol" finale. Instead, the voters scored a TKO of their own, punching out the opinion of the "Idol" judges.
David Cook was crowned the winner of "Idol" on Wednesday, and it wasn't a nail-biter. Ryan Seacrest called the final margin of 56 percent to 44 percent a significant amount when it comes from a total of 97.5 million ballots. What had been seen as the closest competition in ages wound up being what appears to be the biggest rout ever, with Cook winning by 12 million votes.
Both were strong performers all season, with neither coming particularly close to elimination until the finale. This marked a big change from a year ago, when neither the winner, Jordin Sparks, nor runner-up Blake Lewis seemed a safe bet for stardom.
"For the first time ever, I don't really care who wins," Simon said on Wednesday. "I think you've both done terrific."
Judging by the vote totals, the audience cared a lot more than he did about the outcome. They just didn't share his opinion of who the winner should be.
Judges out of touch?
The judges declared Archuleta the champion-in-waiting on Tuesday, but their reasons for doing so may indicate that what the judges and producers are looking for in their "Idol" winner isn't what the audience wants.
Both singers excelled in their final performances, with Archuleta showing off his strong vocal abilities and Cook illustrating how he controls the stage and woos the audience. Neither did anything that would cause their supporters to lose faith.
But Simon in particular dinged Cook for picking a more up-tempo number for the "choose-a-random-song-by-an-unknown" portion of the event. It was true that Cook's choice didn't sound much like the usual sappy ballad that gets placed there. But it also might be true that nobody much likes the usual sappy ballads, and what they were looking for was something that sounded more like actual pop music.
Similarly, Simon criticized Cook's song choice of "The World I Know" by Collective Soul, since it wasn't a song Cook had previously performed. Archuleta, by contrast, chose to provide an encore of John Lennon's "Imagine," a song he'd done early in the season.
But hadn't everyone already heard Archuleta ace that song? He may have tried to remind the viewers of how he'd sounded when he was at his best, but Cook offered something other than the usual song selection. His fans apparently didn't think that he should lose credit for trying something new.
Perhaps sensing that the outcome was in doubt, Simon backtracked on Wednesday. "I want to congratulate both of you. I went back home to watch it, and it wasn't quite so clear-cut as we called it," he said.
The other judges agreed. "You dudes brought it down to the wire. I'm so happy that it's the two of you standing there," Randy said. "You're both winners, baby. Both."
And Paula, phrasing things in her own unique way, added, "You two are truly amazing. It's odd that it's called the finale when it's anything but the final — it's the beginning of the start of the destinies of your career. I'm so proud. And just remember sometimes you think it's all about winning but it's the things sometimes that we lose that remind us of how truly special we are as people."
Old-Timers' Day
Tuesday's erroneous prediction was easy to make for the judges, since the "Idol" staff sometimes seems to be unsure about which age demographic its winners will be targeting. At times, it seems like the show's production people and its fans aren't on the same musical wavelength.
Wednesday's show was more like an Old-Timers' game at Dodger Stadium than a celebration of the nation's newest pop star. Was anyone in the audience clamoring to see Donna Summer onstage for what seemed like forever? Or Bryan Adams? ZZ Top? Graham Nash? Apart from the person who booked Carrie Underwood, the Jonas Brothers and One Republic, does anybody in charge of scheduling the acts have a rolodex that's been updated since 1989?
Maybe the reason the youngsters aren't watching the show as much these days is because there's not much they can relate to musically, since the guest stars and themes are from their parents' and grandparents' day.
Between the veteran acts and the constant product placements for Fox movies and advertisers, it's a wonder that anyone was still tuning in for the result. The clips with Mike Myers alone served as a Scared Straight-esque video of the horrors that could await either finalist if they don't succeed in music … a lifetime of having to do shamelessly bad promotions for unabashedly bad films.
Finally, after two hours of forgettable television, the payoff finally came when Ryan Seacrest announced the winner. For David Cook, who originally went to the auditions only to support his brother, it was confirmation that he'd built a strong enough fan base to veto Simon, Randy and Paula and take the crown.
The "Idol" folks can only hope that after a season that featured mostly guest acts from the distant past, they found a champion who can become a top act in the present.
Craig Berman is a writer in Washington, D.C.
© 2008 MSNBC Interactive
Cook will win ‘Idol’ because Daughtry didn't
Cook will win ‘Idol’ because Daughtry didn't
Older finalist has the personality and the voice to take home title
COMMENTARY
By Craig Berman
MSNBC contributor
updated 2:35 p.m. ET, Fri., May. 16, 2008
It would be easy to end this discussion quickly by saying David Cook will win because he's better. But instead, I'll use the balance of my time and say that Cook will win "American Idol" because Chris Daughtry didn't.
"Idol" is still the top-rated show in the country despite the haters' attempts to knock it off its perch, but there's no question that Daughtry's elimination started the show tilting in the wrong direction. Had he been the winner in season five, the Idol list of champions would have gone Clarkson-Studdard-Fantasia-Underwood-Daughtry, otherwise known as four successes in five seasons. Instead we got Taylor Hicks followed by Jordin Sparks, which hasn't exactly helped the show build a reputation as a star-producing factory.
Good news, "Idol" fans! You may have screwed things up two years ago by picking the fun guy over the actual star in waiting, but you have a chance to rectify that this week.
And you will.
Because let's be honest here — the country has suffered from buyer's remorse ever since it decided to evict Daughtry early. His career has taken off, as "Idol" fans atone for their previous sins by downloading his singles and buying his albums. He even opened for Bon Jovi on tour, which is way cooler than anything this group of finalists can dream of.
Cook doesn't have that same vibe, but he's close. He's never karaoke, yet he's able to work everything from Dolly Parton to Neil Diamond to Roberta Flack into his comfort zone. And he's proven to be far more adaptable at being both unique and conforming, showing that he knows how each song was meant to be sung and then putting his own spin on things.
That's the trickiest skill that "Idol" judges ask the finalists to master, and most fail miserably. Cook gives everyone enough old-school notes to convince the judges that he's taking it seriously, but throws in enough wrinkles to make the tunes contemporary. The producers couldn't have drawn up a more musically-appropriate finalist if they'd rigged one up in a machine shop.
Simply put, Cook's sound is better equipped to sell music. It's got enough of a hip vibe to appear on contemporary rock stations without sounding too ridiculous, but it's friendly enough to appear on work-safe Lite Rock 101 as well.
Turn on the radio Go ahead. I'll wait. Do the singers you hear sound more like Cook, with this slightly-edgy-and-yet-entirely-unthreatening style? Or do they sound like Archuleta's ... whatever.
Cook also has the right personality to appeal to voters. True, he lacks the "Oh my golly! This is neato-torpedo!" charm of Archuleta, but he's no threat to mainstream sensibilities either. If he has any skeletons in his closet, they are well hidden. So are any tattoos.
He's calm and polite, and comes across like someone who cares very much about winning without being a threat to break down in hysterical sobs if he loses. With his laid-back, sardonic and cynical interview style, he could be a rock star already.
Everybody's choice
Not only do the show's fans want David Cook to win, the judges and the producers likely do as well.
At this point the show doesn't need a young winner who's long on potential. "Idol" needs someone who succeeds immediately, so the show's producers can quit answering those nagging questions about where all the viewers have gone and get back to discussing the show as a training ground for future stars.
The judges and producers can't control who the people vote for. But they can nudge the needle, either by offering withering criticism or failing to make a big deal of a favorite's gaffes.
They've wanted Archuleta in the finals all season, When he missed a lyric earlier this year, his mistake was turned into a "Ha ha, you big dope, try not to do it again" teaching lesson, as opposed to the slams that occurred when Brooke White and Jason Castro had similar screwups.
Cook didn't start the season with that kind of rope, and even got into a bit of a snipe-fest with Simon early. But he quickly learned to hold his tongue, and Simon was converted into a fan. Now, at worst, Cook is the judges' co-favorite, and judging by the comments in recent weeks he's probably their preferred "Idol" champ.
Kelly Clarkson, Chris Daughtry, Carrie Underwood — what do these "Idol" greats have in common? Even when they were lowly contestants forced to listen to the banter from the judges, they all sounded like people already on the radio. Put Cook in the studio, give him some good songs to work with and voila, a hit.
That's what the show wants. And that will tip the balance and make Cook the seventh "American Idol."
Older finalist has the personality and the voice to take home title
COMMENTARY
By Craig Berman
MSNBC contributor
updated 2:35 p.m. ET, Fri., May. 16, 2008
It would be easy to end this discussion quickly by saying David Cook will win because he's better. But instead, I'll use the balance of my time and say that Cook will win "American Idol" because Chris Daughtry didn't.
"Idol" is still the top-rated show in the country despite the haters' attempts to knock it off its perch, but there's no question that Daughtry's elimination started the show tilting in the wrong direction. Had he been the winner in season five, the Idol list of champions would have gone Clarkson-Studdard-Fantasia-Underwood-Daughtry, otherwise known as four successes in five seasons. Instead we got Taylor Hicks followed by Jordin Sparks, which hasn't exactly helped the show build a reputation as a star-producing factory.
Good news, "Idol" fans! You may have screwed things up two years ago by picking the fun guy over the actual star in waiting, but you have a chance to rectify that this week.
And you will.
Because let's be honest here — the country has suffered from buyer's remorse ever since it decided to evict Daughtry early. His career has taken off, as "Idol" fans atone for their previous sins by downloading his singles and buying his albums. He even opened for Bon Jovi on tour, which is way cooler than anything this group of finalists can dream of.
Cook doesn't have that same vibe, but he's close. He's never karaoke, yet he's able to work everything from Dolly Parton to Neil Diamond to Roberta Flack into his comfort zone. And he's proven to be far more adaptable at being both unique and conforming, showing that he knows how each song was meant to be sung and then putting his own spin on things.
That's the trickiest skill that "Idol" judges ask the finalists to master, and most fail miserably. Cook gives everyone enough old-school notes to convince the judges that he's taking it seriously, but throws in enough wrinkles to make the tunes contemporary. The producers couldn't have drawn up a more musically-appropriate finalist if they'd rigged one up in a machine shop.
Simply put, Cook's sound is better equipped to sell music. It's got enough of a hip vibe to appear on contemporary rock stations without sounding too ridiculous, but it's friendly enough to appear on work-safe Lite Rock 101 as well.
Turn on the radio Go ahead. I'll wait. Do the singers you hear sound more like Cook, with this slightly-edgy-and-yet-entirely-unthreatening style? Or do they sound like Archuleta's ... whatever.
Cook also has the right personality to appeal to voters. True, he lacks the "Oh my golly! This is neato-torpedo!" charm of Archuleta, but he's no threat to mainstream sensibilities either. If he has any skeletons in his closet, they are well hidden. So are any tattoos.
He's calm and polite, and comes across like someone who cares very much about winning without being a threat to break down in hysterical sobs if he loses. With his laid-back, sardonic and cynical interview style, he could be a rock star already.
Everybody's choice
Not only do the show's fans want David Cook to win, the judges and the producers likely do as well.
At this point the show doesn't need a young winner who's long on potential. "Idol" needs someone who succeeds immediately, so the show's producers can quit answering those nagging questions about where all the viewers have gone and get back to discussing the show as a training ground for future stars.
The judges and producers can't control who the people vote for. But they can nudge the needle, either by offering withering criticism or failing to make a big deal of a favorite's gaffes.
They've wanted Archuleta in the finals all season, When he missed a lyric earlier this year, his mistake was turned into a "Ha ha, you big dope, try not to do it again" teaching lesson, as opposed to the slams that occurred when Brooke White and Jason Castro had similar screwups.
Cook didn't start the season with that kind of rope, and even got into a bit of a snipe-fest with Simon early. But he quickly learned to hold his tongue, and Simon was converted into a fan. Now, at worst, Cook is the judges' co-favorite, and judging by the comments in recent weeks he's probably their preferred "Idol" champ.
Kelly Clarkson, Chris Daughtry, Carrie Underwood — what do these "Idol" greats have in common? Even when they were lowly contestants forced to listen to the banter from the judges, they all sounded like people already on the radio. Put Cook in the studio, give him some good songs to work with and voila, a hit.
That's what the show wants. And that will tip the balance and make Cook the seventh "American Idol."
Scoop: 'Idol' producers reportedly want Cook to win
Plus: Olsen twins’ Starbucks scandal; Miley’s good-girl image coming back
By Courtney Hazlett
The Scoop
updated 10:37 p.m. ET, Tues., May. 20, 2008
In the battle of the Davids, there is already a clear winner, at least behind the scenes of “American Idol.”
According to a source close to the judging panel, “The producers are really hoping that David Cook wins.” The reason shouldn’t come as much of a shocker: “David Archuleta cannot be managed the way that 19 Entertainment wants to manage their winners.”
19 Entertainment produces “American Idol,” signs the winners to management contracts and handles the recording agreements made within the Sony/BMG record label.
“David Archuleta comes to the table with his own plans and agenda. His father is another shade of Joe Simpson, and it can only spell disaster,” the source said.
Cook, on the other hand, “is extremely manageable” in the opinion of the producers, said the source. “The show has enough on its hands trying to get ratings back to where they used to be. The last thing they want is a rogue winner.”
By Courtney Hazlett
The Scoop
updated 10:37 p.m. ET, Tues., May. 20, 2008
In the battle of the Davids, there is already a clear winner, at least behind the scenes of “American Idol.”
According to a source close to the judging panel, “The producers are really hoping that David Cook wins.” The reason shouldn’t come as much of a shocker: “David Archuleta cannot be managed the way that 19 Entertainment wants to manage their winners.”
19 Entertainment produces “American Idol,” signs the winners to management contracts and handles the recording agreements made within the Sony/BMG record label.
“David Archuleta comes to the table with his own plans and agenda. His father is another shade of Joe Simpson, and it can only spell disaster,” the source said.
Cook, on the other hand, “is extremely manageable” in the opinion of the producers, said the source. “The show has enough on its hands trying to get ratings back to where they used to be. The last thing they want is a rogue winner.”
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
DeAnna Pappas is the latest "Bachelorette"
TV News
Q&A: DeAnna Pappas of 'The Bachelorette'
The latest "Bachelorette" dishes on her rejection by Brad, the hunky men on her show and the worst thing about being a reality TV star
By Dave Lake
MSN TV
MSN TV: How were you feeling at the end of your season of "The Bachelor" and what ultimately led you to want to do this show, which lets you choose your potential mate instead of them choosing you?
DeAnna Pappas: On that very last day with Brad [Womack] when he rejected me, I was just completely confused. I was hurt. He was the one person that I trusted most throughout that entire process -- and I was standing there looking at a person that ultimately I didn't know.
How long did you end up feeling betrayed and at what point did you decide that doing "The Bachelorette" might give you vindication or make you feel better?
Well, I didn't do "The Bachelorette" to make me feel better. (Laughs.) I got home that first day and had to wait three months for the show to air. I was already in the healing process, but I thought there was a small chance I would give Brad a second chance. When we got to the "After the Final Rose" show and Brad was still very sure about his decision, that was it for me. I moved on with my life. There was no more holding on to anything. I woke up the next day and realized I'm a great person and that somebody perfect is going to come along. So when they actually announced on the "Ellen" show that ABC wanted me to be the next "Bachelorette" I was extremely excited. I couldn't believe that ABC thought that people would actually watch a love story with me in it.
Did your public betrayal with Brad cause you to hold back anything when meeting your new crop of men?
I don't carry anything into a new relationship. The past is the past. I go into everything with an open mind and an open heart and give everybody a fair chance.
What do you say to cynics who say it's naïve to think you can find love on a reality dating show?
Everybody's going to have their opinions and you can't change everyone's mind. But I believe in the show and I believe in the experience. It happened for me. I can't help it that it didn't happen for Brad, but people do find love and do live happily ever after. Look at Trista and Ryan [who met and married after the first season of "The Bachelorette"]. I don't think it's a matter of where you meet someone. What matters is that you finally meet someone you're meant to be with.
What's the best thing and the worst thing about being a reality TV star?
The best thing is that I get to have these amazing experiences that not many people ever get to go through. I'm a lucky person, and I'm very grateful. It was something that was crazy and that I'll never, ever forget -- two of the most amazing experiences of my life. The worst part would be being out there so much. People can criticize and make judgments off a few seconds of television. You can't change everybody's mind. You can just hope for the best and try to not be a judgmental person.
Can you tell us a bit about the men that will be competing for your heart this season?
I got 25 of the best men in America. They're all handsome, great guys. They genuinely have good hearts and I am so thankful that they all put their lives on hold for the chance to fall in love with me.
What was it you were ultimately looking for in the person you ended up choosing?
I truly wanted someone who knows what they want. I'm done dating the kinds of guys who don't know what they want. I want someone who is family-oriented. Someone who is career-driven. They don't have to have the best job as long as they love what they do. I wanted someone who is polite. Someone who would love me for me, good or bad. And someone who would respect me. A gentleman.
Check out DeAnna's quest for love on "The Bachelorette," Mondays at 9 p.m. ET/PT on ABC.
Q&A: DeAnna Pappas of 'The Bachelorette'
The latest "Bachelorette" dishes on her rejection by Brad, the hunky men on her show and the worst thing about being a reality TV star
By Dave Lake
MSN TV
MSN TV: How were you feeling at the end of your season of "The Bachelor" and what ultimately led you to want to do this show, which lets you choose your potential mate instead of them choosing you?
DeAnna Pappas: On that very last day with Brad [Womack] when he rejected me, I was just completely confused. I was hurt. He was the one person that I trusted most throughout that entire process -- and I was standing there looking at a person that ultimately I didn't know.
How long did you end up feeling betrayed and at what point did you decide that doing "The Bachelorette" might give you vindication or make you feel better?
Well, I didn't do "The Bachelorette" to make me feel better. (Laughs.) I got home that first day and had to wait three months for the show to air. I was already in the healing process, but I thought there was a small chance I would give Brad a second chance. When we got to the "After the Final Rose" show and Brad was still very sure about his decision, that was it for me. I moved on with my life. There was no more holding on to anything. I woke up the next day and realized I'm a great person and that somebody perfect is going to come along. So when they actually announced on the "Ellen" show that ABC wanted me to be the next "Bachelorette" I was extremely excited. I couldn't believe that ABC thought that people would actually watch a love story with me in it.
Did your public betrayal with Brad cause you to hold back anything when meeting your new crop of men?
I don't carry anything into a new relationship. The past is the past. I go into everything with an open mind and an open heart and give everybody a fair chance.
What do you say to cynics who say it's naïve to think you can find love on a reality dating show?
Everybody's going to have their opinions and you can't change everyone's mind. But I believe in the show and I believe in the experience. It happened for me. I can't help it that it didn't happen for Brad, but people do find love and do live happily ever after. Look at Trista and Ryan [who met and married after the first season of "The Bachelorette"]. I don't think it's a matter of where you meet someone. What matters is that you finally meet someone you're meant to be with.
What's the best thing and the worst thing about being a reality TV star?
The best thing is that I get to have these amazing experiences that not many people ever get to go through. I'm a lucky person, and I'm very grateful. It was something that was crazy and that I'll never, ever forget -- two of the most amazing experiences of my life. The worst part would be being out there so much. People can criticize and make judgments off a few seconds of television. You can't change everybody's mind. You can just hope for the best and try to not be a judgmental person.
Can you tell us a bit about the men that will be competing for your heart this season?
I got 25 of the best men in America. They're all handsome, great guys. They genuinely have good hearts and I am so thankful that they all put their lives on hold for the chance to fall in love with me.
What was it you were ultimately looking for in the person you ended up choosing?
I truly wanted someone who knows what they want. I'm done dating the kinds of guys who don't know what they want. I want someone who is family-oriented. Someone who is career-driven. They don't have to have the best job as long as they love what they do. I wanted someone who is polite. Someone who would love me for me, good or bad. And someone who would respect me. A gentleman.
Check out DeAnna's quest for love on "The Bachelorette," Mondays at 9 p.m. ET/PT on ABC.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
What's Indy up to? Secrecy shrouds `Crystal Skull'
Yahoo!
Friday May 16 10:46 AM ET
Indiana Jones doesn't give up his secrets lightly, and neither does the man pulling his strings.
Director Steven Spielberg has tried to keep chapter four of the archaeologist's big-screen adventures, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," under wraps as tight as an ancient mummy's.
The stealth approach has whipped up a frenzy of expectation and doubts about the movie's quality as he prepares to unveil it in front of the world's toughest audience, critics at the Cannes Film Festival. The film premieres here Sunday, just four days before it opens in theaters worldwide.
In an era of Internet spoilers, fan blogging and online video diaries where filmmakers show off their tricks, Indy returns with the old-fashioned covertness Spielberg always has favored.
"He is the only one in the world who keeps his cards face down on the table until the 11th hour, 59th minute, 59th second, and nothing deters him from doing that," said Jeffrey Katzenberg, Spielberg's partner at DreamWorks.
Revealing their cards at Cannes, with its notoriously snooty press corps, is a critical risk for Spielberg, executive producer George Lucas and star Harrison Ford.
Hollywood trade paper Variety quipped that Indiana Jones was entering the "Kingdom of the Critical Knives," and reporters have joked that Cannes might prove a new Temple of Doom for Indy.
Two years ago, the first press screening of "The Da Vinci Code" drew open laughter from Cannes critics, whose harsh reviews spoiled the film's premiere a day later and set the stage for a worldwide critical drubbing.
Of course, "The Da Vinci Code" went on to gross $758 million globally. As the first movie in 19 years for one of cinema's biggest adventure series, "Crystal Skull" is virtually assured of blockbuster results, too.
Possibly to shield "Crystal Skull" from a similar critical backlash, Spielberg, Lucas and distributor Paramount weren't letting critics see the movie until hours before its Cannes premiere.
In an unusual move, the few cast and crew interviews at Cannes were scheduled Saturday, before reporters had even seen the film. The movie's profile is so high, the filmmakers figure it doesn't need the usual publicity.
Spielberg has been hush-hush from the start. Co-star Karen Allen, reprising her "Raiders of the Lost Ark" role as Indy's old flame Marion Ravenwood, said Spielberg initially wanted to keep it a secret that she was even in "Crystal Skull."
"Even after the film was announced, people would call me. `Oh, it's too bad you're not going to be in the film,'" Allen said. "I had to go along with it and say, `Yeah, it's a shame.' When it was finally announced I was in it, it was a huge relief. I was having to make up stories for why I wasn't in it, and I was finding it excruciating to have to do that."
In its earliest incarnation, Lucas proposed an all-out alien flick called "Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men From Mars." Spielberg and Ford didn't like that idea, and it took more than a decade of wrangling to come up with a story all three could live with.
A trailer showing a crate marked "Roswell, New Mexico, 1947" a mecca for UFO buffs hints that the movie retains traces of its extraterrestrial origins. Remarks by Lucas that the new film took its cue from 1950s sci-fi tales backs up that notion.
"The B-movies of the '50s were crazy science-fiction films, `It Came From Outer Space' and `Them!' and I said, `Well, gee, I could use that as the basis of the genre that I was using as my reference,'" Lucas said.
From the trailers and studio press materials, the basic story line is out there Indy and Soviet agents led by Cate Blanchett pursue a crystal skull that can bestow fantastic power on those returning it to a city of solid gold in the Amazon from where it was stolen.
Secrets remain, such as how Indy and Marion are reunited and whether co-star Shia LaBeouf is playing the love child of their "Raiders" romance.
Spielberg was incensed last year when an extra leaked plot details, and the filmmakers have scrambled to maintain the mystery.
"It's been insane," said Frank Marshall, producer on the "Indiana Jones" movies. "I've spent a great deal of time on this movie just trying to keep things off the Internet. That's totally new for us. There seems to be some kind of sport out there now to see who can put up a spoiler, which is not fair to the audience. We really tried to keep the lid on the story just for the audience's sake."
Accustomed to fan gripes from his "Star Wars" prequels, Lucas has downplayed expectations for "Crystal Skull," saying audiences will be disappointed if they're anticipating a cinematic Second Coming.
Such remarks could just be part of Lucas and Spielberg's strategy to keep fans guessing.
"There's a little P.T. Barnum in both of them. They know how to get you interested," said "Crystal Skull" screenwriter David Koepp. "There's nothing more interesting than saying, `You can't see what's under here. I'd love to show you what's behind there, but I just can't.'"
Even a short behind-the-scenes segment on the official "Indiana Jones" Web site doesn't show much from behind the scenes. It focuses mainly on Spielberg in generic filmmaking mode, revealing virtually nothing about the action, ending with a close-up of Spielberg finishing a shot.
"And cut," Spielberg says. "Very nice."
The tough crowd at Cannes will have something to say about that Sunday.
___
On the Net:
http://www.indianajones.com
Friday May 16 10:46 AM ET
Indiana Jones doesn't give up his secrets lightly, and neither does the man pulling his strings.
Director Steven Spielberg has tried to keep chapter four of the archaeologist's big-screen adventures, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," under wraps as tight as an ancient mummy's.
The stealth approach has whipped up a frenzy of expectation and doubts about the movie's quality as he prepares to unveil it in front of the world's toughest audience, critics at the Cannes Film Festival. The film premieres here Sunday, just four days before it opens in theaters worldwide.
In an era of Internet spoilers, fan blogging and online video diaries where filmmakers show off their tricks, Indy returns with the old-fashioned covertness Spielberg always has favored.
"He is the only one in the world who keeps his cards face down on the table until the 11th hour, 59th minute, 59th second, and nothing deters him from doing that," said Jeffrey Katzenberg, Spielberg's partner at DreamWorks.
Revealing their cards at Cannes, with its notoriously snooty press corps, is a critical risk for Spielberg, executive producer George Lucas and star Harrison Ford.
Hollywood trade paper Variety quipped that Indiana Jones was entering the "Kingdom of the Critical Knives," and reporters have joked that Cannes might prove a new Temple of Doom for Indy.
Two years ago, the first press screening of "The Da Vinci Code" drew open laughter from Cannes critics, whose harsh reviews spoiled the film's premiere a day later and set the stage for a worldwide critical drubbing.
Of course, "The Da Vinci Code" went on to gross $758 million globally. As the first movie in 19 years for one of cinema's biggest adventure series, "Crystal Skull" is virtually assured of blockbuster results, too.
Possibly to shield "Crystal Skull" from a similar critical backlash, Spielberg, Lucas and distributor Paramount weren't letting critics see the movie until hours before its Cannes premiere.
In an unusual move, the few cast and crew interviews at Cannes were scheduled Saturday, before reporters had even seen the film. The movie's profile is so high, the filmmakers figure it doesn't need the usual publicity.
Spielberg has been hush-hush from the start. Co-star Karen Allen, reprising her "Raiders of the Lost Ark" role as Indy's old flame Marion Ravenwood, said Spielberg initially wanted to keep it a secret that she was even in "Crystal Skull."
"Even after the film was announced, people would call me. `Oh, it's too bad you're not going to be in the film,'" Allen said. "I had to go along with it and say, `Yeah, it's a shame.' When it was finally announced I was in it, it was a huge relief. I was having to make up stories for why I wasn't in it, and I was finding it excruciating to have to do that."
In its earliest incarnation, Lucas proposed an all-out alien flick called "Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men From Mars." Spielberg and Ford didn't like that idea, and it took more than a decade of wrangling to come up with a story all three could live with.
A trailer showing a crate marked "Roswell, New Mexico, 1947" a mecca for UFO buffs hints that the movie retains traces of its extraterrestrial origins. Remarks by Lucas that the new film took its cue from 1950s sci-fi tales backs up that notion.
"The B-movies of the '50s were crazy science-fiction films, `It Came From Outer Space' and `Them!' and I said, `Well, gee, I could use that as the basis of the genre that I was using as my reference,'" Lucas said.
From the trailers and studio press materials, the basic story line is out there Indy and Soviet agents led by Cate Blanchett pursue a crystal skull that can bestow fantastic power on those returning it to a city of solid gold in the Amazon from where it was stolen.
Secrets remain, such as how Indy and Marion are reunited and whether co-star Shia LaBeouf is playing the love child of their "Raiders" romance.
Spielberg was incensed last year when an extra leaked plot details, and the filmmakers have scrambled to maintain the mystery.
"It's been insane," said Frank Marshall, producer on the "Indiana Jones" movies. "I've spent a great deal of time on this movie just trying to keep things off the Internet. That's totally new for us. There seems to be some kind of sport out there now to see who can put up a spoiler, which is not fair to the audience. We really tried to keep the lid on the story just for the audience's sake."
Accustomed to fan gripes from his "Star Wars" prequels, Lucas has downplayed expectations for "Crystal Skull," saying audiences will be disappointed if they're anticipating a cinematic Second Coming.
Such remarks could just be part of Lucas and Spielberg's strategy to keep fans guessing.
"There's a little P.T. Barnum in both of them. They know how to get you interested," said "Crystal Skull" screenwriter David Koepp. "There's nothing more interesting than saying, `You can't see what's under here. I'd love to show you what's behind there, but I just can't.'"
Even a short behind-the-scenes segment on the official "Indiana Jones" Web site doesn't show much from behind the scenes. It focuses mainly on Spielberg in generic filmmaking mode, revealing virtually nothing about the action, ending with a close-up of Spielberg finishing a shot.
"And cut," Spielberg says. "Very nice."
The tough crowd at Cannes will have something to say about that Sunday.
___
On the Net:
http://www.indianajones.com
Friday, May 16, 2008
Barack Obama: the new Great Redeemer
From The TimesMay 16, 2008
Barack Obama: the new Great Redeemer
First it was Kennedy... now the US media are prostrating themselves before the saviour
Gerard Baker
Every decade or so the people who control the way we see the world anoint some American politician the Redeemer of a Troubled Planet.
In the late 1960s the media placed the halo on Robert Kennedy, the tragic dynast whose antiwar and civil rights credentials made him in life - as he remains to this day in death - a kind of devotional figure for most political journalists.
Kennedy at least had charisma and intelligence. But to prove that these were by no means necessary preconditions for the honour, it was conferred a few years later on Jimmy Carter, the plodding nonentity elevated by a willingly compliant press into Everyman, brandishing his steely sword of Truth against the Manichean mendacity of Richard Nixon's Republican legacy.
Partly because of the Carter embarrassment, the 1980s were barren years for the idolators. Try as they might, they couldn't work themselves into much ecstasy over Walter Mondale in 1984 or Michael Dukakis in 1988, though they had little flings with bit-part players Gary Hart and (I kid you not) Bruce Babbitt, a genial former Governor of Arizona.
But by the 1990s a new Democrat, or rather a New Democrat, was come among us, a man the media told us would lift our eyes from our selfish greed and rid the world of the ineffable misery left by 12 years of reactionary rule. It's hard to imagine now, after the battering he's taken from his old friends in the press these past few months, but Bill Clinton was once their idol. His cleverly cynical balancing act - promising a return to high-minded tolerance while executing mentally ill prisoners in Arkansas, for example - was lauded as a brilliant synthesising of traditional liberal ideology with the political realities of the modern age.
The alert among you will have noticed by now that what all these spiritually uplifting leaders have in common. They are all Democrats. Never in any of the chapters of this hagiography does a Republican, a conservative, appear in a remotely similar light. These alien creatures by contrast have always been portrayed as cartoonish representatives of the Dark Side of humanity, or, if they were really lucky, simply idiots, failed B-movie actors and irredeemably ignorant hicks with embarrassingly neanderthal views on women, religion and communism.
It's been a while coming - neither Al Gore in 2000 (before the luminescence created by his recent joint Nobel/Oscar triumphs) nor John Kerry in 2004 quite fit the bill. But it's fairly clear now that, with the near-certain nomination by the Democrats of Barack Obama everything is in place for the media to indulge in one of the greatest, orgiastic media fiestas of hero-worship since Elvis Presley.
You will not see a finer example of the genre than the cover story of this week's Newsweek, which was entitled “The O Team”. This rhapsodic inside account of Senator Obama's campaign reads a little like a cross between Father Alban Butler's Life of St Francis and the sort of authorised biography of Kim Jong Il you can pick up in any good bookshop in Pyongyang.
Mr Obama is portrayed throughout as an immanently benevolent figure. Not human really, more a comforting presence, a light source. He is always eager to listen to all aides of an argument, always instilling confidence in the weak-willed, resolutely sticking to his high principles and tirelessly spurning the low road of electoral politics. I stopped reading after a while but I'm sure by the end he was healing the sick, comforting the dying, restoring sight to the blind and setting prisoners free.
The panegyric included the now conventional wisdom in the media that Republicans have only ever won elections in the past 40 years through lies and fearmongering - smearing their opponents and spreading false fears that a vote for a Democrat would open the country to foreign invasion.
To be fair, the Newsweek credo was only the latest and perhaps most shameless phase of the pro-Obama liturgy in the media. Some cable TV channels prostrate themselves nightly before him. Most newspapers worship at the altar. They have already set up a neat narrative for the election between Senator Obama and John McCain in November - the Second Coming versus Old Grouchy, The Little Flower of Illinois up against the Scaremongering Axeman from Arizona.
There's a special irony here. Senator McCain is the Republican who has received probably the single most favourable treatment from the media in the past 40 years. He has been a favourite because he conformed to the first law of contemporary political journalism: the only good conservative is a bad conservative. His willingness to defy his party on everything from taxes to global warming, to take on George Bush, has earned him at least an honourable mention in the martyrology of American politics of the past 40 years.
But now that he's up against Oh! Bama! he will have to be recast in the more familiar Republican mould of villain and scaremonger-in-chief.
This media narrative is not only an outgrowth of the journalists' natural enthusiasm for a Democrat such as Mr Obama. It is also a clever ploy to pre-emptively de-legitimise any Republican critique of the Democratic nominee. It is designed to prevent Mr McCain from asking reasonable questions about Mr Obama's strikingly vacuous political background, or raising doubts about his credentials for the presidency.
The idolatry of Mr Obama is a shame, really. The Illinois senator is indeed, an unusually talented, inspiring and charismatic figure. His very ethnicity offers an exciting departure. But he is not a saint. He is a smart and eloquent man with a personal history that is startlingly shallow set against the scale of the office he seeks to hold. It is not only legitimate, but necessary, to scrutinise his past and infer what it might tell us about his beliefs, in the absence of the normal record of achievement expected in a presidential nominee.
If the past 40 years have taught us anything they have surely taught that premature canonisation is an almost certain guarantee of subsequent deep disappointment.
Barack Obama: the new Great Redeemer
First it was Kennedy... now the US media are prostrating themselves before the saviour
Gerard Baker
Every decade or so the people who control the way we see the world anoint some American politician the Redeemer of a Troubled Planet.
In the late 1960s the media placed the halo on Robert Kennedy, the tragic dynast whose antiwar and civil rights credentials made him in life - as he remains to this day in death - a kind of devotional figure for most political journalists.
Kennedy at least had charisma and intelligence. But to prove that these were by no means necessary preconditions for the honour, it was conferred a few years later on Jimmy Carter, the plodding nonentity elevated by a willingly compliant press into Everyman, brandishing his steely sword of Truth against the Manichean mendacity of Richard Nixon's Republican legacy.
Partly because of the Carter embarrassment, the 1980s were barren years for the idolators. Try as they might, they couldn't work themselves into much ecstasy over Walter Mondale in 1984 or Michael Dukakis in 1988, though they had little flings with bit-part players Gary Hart and (I kid you not) Bruce Babbitt, a genial former Governor of Arizona.
But by the 1990s a new Democrat, or rather a New Democrat, was come among us, a man the media told us would lift our eyes from our selfish greed and rid the world of the ineffable misery left by 12 years of reactionary rule. It's hard to imagine now, after the battering he's taken from his old friends in the press these past few months, but Bill Clinton was once their idol. His cleverly cynical balancing act - promising a return to high-minded tolerance while executing mentally ill prisoners in Arkansas, for example - was lauded as a brilliant synthesising of traditional liberal ideology with the political realities of the modern age.
The alert among you will have noticed by now that what all these spiritually uplifting leaders have in common. They are all Democrats. Never in any of the chapters of this hagiography does a Republican, a conservative, appear in a remotely similar light. These alien creatures by contrast have always been portrayed as cartoonish representatives of the Dark Side of humanity, or, if they were really lucky, simply idiots, failed B-movie actors and irredeemably ignorant hicks with embarrassingly neanderthal views on women, religion and communism.
It's been a while coming - neither Al Gore in 2000 (before the luminescence created by his recent joint Nobel/Oscar triumphs) nor John Kerry in 2004 quite fit the bill. But it's fairly clear now that, with the near-certain nomination by the Democrats of Barack Obama everything is in place for the media to indulge in one of the greatest, orgiastic media fiestas of hero-worship since Elvis Presley.
You will not see a finer example of the genre than the cover story of this week's Newsweek, which was entitled “The O Team”. This rhapsodic inside account of Senator Obama's campaign reads a little like a cross between Father Alban Butler's Life of St Francis and the sort of authorised biography of Kim Jong Il you can pick up in any good bookshop in Pyongyang.
Mr Obama is portrayed throughout as an immanently benevolent figure. Not human really, more a comforting presence, a light source. He is always eager to listen to all aides of an argument, always instilling confidence in the weak-willed, resolutely sticking to his high principles and tirelessly spurning the low road of electoral politics. I stopped reading after a while but I'm sure by the end he was healing the sick, comforting the dying, restoring sight to the blind and setting prisoners free.
The panegyric included the now conventional wisdom in the media that Republicans have only ever won elections in the past 40 years through lies and fearmongering - smearing their opponents and spreading false fears that a vote for a Democrat would open the country to foreign invasion.
To be fair, the Newsweek credo was only the latest and perhaps most shameless phase of the pro-Obama liturgy in the media. Some cable TV channels prostrate themselves nightly before him. Most newspapers worship at the altar. They have already set up a neat narrative for the election between Senator Obama and John McCain in November - the Second Coming versus Old Grouchy, The Little Flower of Illinois up against the Scaremongering Axeman from Arizona.
There's a special irony here. Senator McCain is the Republican who has received probably the single most favourable treatment from the media in the past 40 years. He has been a favourite because he conformed to the first law of contemporary political journalism: the only good conservative is a bad conservative. His willingness to defy his party on everything from taxes to global warming, to take on George Bush, has earned him at least an honourable mention in the martyrology of American politics of the past 40 years.
But now that he's up against Oh! Bama! he will have to be recast in the more familiar Republican mould of villain and scaremonger-in-chief.
This media narrative is not only an outgrowth of the journalists' natural enthusiasm for a Democrat such as Mr Obama. It is also a clever ploy to pre-emptively de-legitimise any Republican critique of the Democratic nominee. It is designed to prevent Mr McCain from asking reasonable questions about Mr Obama's strikingly vacuous political background, or raising doubts about his credentials for the presidency.
The idolatry of Mr Obama is a shame, really. The Illinois senator is indeed, an unusually talented, inspiring and charismatic figure. His very ethnicity offers an exciting departure. But he is not a saint. He is a smart and eloquent man with a personal history that is startlingly shallow set against the scale of the office he seeks to hold. It is not only legitimate, but necessary, to scrutinise his past and infer what it might tell us about his beliefs, in the absence of the normal record of achievement expected in a presidential nominee.
If the past 40 years have taught us anything they have surely taught that premature canonisation is an almost certain guarantee of subsequent deep disappointment.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Hillary: I’m Here, Get Used To It
Hillary: I’m Here, Get Used To It
And a landslide in West Virginia doesn’t hurt.
By Byron York
If the Democratic presidential race were a runaway, if Barack Obama were, say, 1,500 delegates ahead of Hillary Clinton, then there would likely not be so many anguished cries for Clinton to quit the race.
Just look at 1992. Bill Clinton is fond of saying he didn’t wrap up the Democratic nomination until June 2 of that year, when he won the California primary. That’s technically true, but Clinton was the clear winner long before that. Nevertheless, former California Gov. Jerry Brown stubbornly stayed in the race, even though going into June 2, he had 388 delegates to Clinton’s 2,059. (Clinton’s total was, at the time, 86 short of locking up the nomination.)
Brown hadn’t been taken seriously since losing the New York primary on April 7, but he kept at it. His campaign became so quixotic that in late May, during a visit to an elementary school in South Central Los Angeles, a nine year-old asked him, “What do you plan to do to get more delegates to win this campaign?” “That’s a very good question,” Brown answered, according to an Associated Press report. “What do you think we should do?”
There was no good answer, but who cared? Brown could stay in as long as he liked because his presence didn’t really matter. But Hillary Clinton’s campaign, which is not only not 1,500 delegates behind Barack Obama but might, by some reckoning, catch up with him in the popular vote total — and in any event remains excruciatingly close to Obama in all measures — is different. Obama’s supporters, in the campaign, in the Democratic party, and in the press are desperate for her to leave the race precisely because her support is so substantial; her continued presence is a daily reminder of how profoundly divided the party is at this moment.
Her landslide 67-26 victory over Obama in West Virginia — she won by 147,410 votes — won’t change that situation. The oft-repeated fact that no Democrat since 1916 has won the White House without winning West Virginia won’t change it, either. But together, those two facts show just how far Democrats have ventured into uncharted territory this year. If Obama is to win the White House, he’ll have to do it in a brand-new way, winning states that Democrats haven’t won lately with diminished support in states that have been important to Democratic victories in the past. Clinton’s campaign reminds Democrats of that, and it makes some of them nervous.
The West Virginia results were as across-the-board as you can get. She won 57-34 among men and 70-24 among women. She won 64-25 among voters who attend church more than once a week and 64-34 among voters who never go to church. She won 69-24 among voters without a college degree and 54-39 among voters with a degree. She won 69-25 among voters who make less than $50,000 a year and 58-34 among voters who make more than that. She won 65-28 among voters who think the economy is the most important issue, 57-37 among voters who think the war in Iraq is the most important issue, and 68-23 among voters who think health care is the most important issue. She won 67-26 among white voters. (We don’t know the breakdown among black voters, because they were too few in number — West Virginia is 95 percent white — for exit pollsters to calculate, although results in other states suggest that blacks probably voted 90-plus percent for Obama.) She won 67-25 among voters who have a union member in their household and 63-31 among voters who don’t. She won 56-38 among voters under 30 years old, 63-27 among voters between 30 and 44 years old, 65-27 among voters between 45 and 59 years old, and 68-28 among voters 60 and older. Among all voters, 70 percent want the campaign to continue, against just 24 percent who want it to end as soon as possible.
It’s no wonder Obama didn’t give a speech last night. But Clinton did, and she made it clear that the Democrats who are just dying for her to leave the race will have to just die for a while longer.
“Now, there are some who have wanted to cut this race short,” she told supporters in Charleston. “They say, ‘Give up. It’s too hard. The mountain is too high.’ But here in West Virginia, you know a thing or two about rough roads to the top of the mountain. . . . I am more determined than ever to carry on this campaign until everyone has had a chance to make their voices heard.”
Clinton repeated her insistence that delegates from Florida and Michigan — “all of their delegates” — be seated. “I believe we should honor the votes cast by 2.3 million people in those states,” she said. Her demand was pooh-poohed in some circles of the commentariat, but the question for Democrats is: Why is that such a radioactive proposition? This is the party that got rather excited over 537 votes in Florida in 2000, the party that would like to pass something called the Count Every Vote Act, the party that has consistently favored greater enfranchisement over stricter enforcement of the rules (and sometimes the law). Sure, Clinton wants to change the agreement that existed going in to Florida and Michigan, but circumstances have changed, too. Since when have Democrats been such sticklers for unbending rules? Why do so many in the party insist that millions of votes in two key states be counted only if they don’t matter — that is, if the result is a fait accompli — and not be counted if they do?
If they were counted now — even if some of them were counted now — things might be quite different. According to the Real Clear Politics total, when one includes estimated vote totals in caucus states (a factor which favors Obama) plus results from Florida (which favor Clinton), but nothing from Michigan, where Obama’s name was not on the ballot, Obama’s lead in the national popular vote is 411,915. That figure is less than Obama’s margin of victory in his home of Cook County, Illinois, where, according to the Illinois Board of Elections, Obama won by 429,052 votes. By other counts, Obama’s lead is far less than his winning margin in Cook County. In other words, take away Cook County and Obama is the loser in the national popular vote race. He’s the president of Chicago.
Nevertheless, the Obama steamroller goes on. “This race, I believe, is over,” former Democratic party chairman — and Clinton supporter — Roy Romer told reporters on an Obama conference call Tuesday morning. “It is time for the party to unify, to get beyond the primary season, and to begin the general election.” His words echo those of dozens of top party figures in recent weeks. But they haven’t quite answered Hillary Clinton’s fundamental question: Why?
—
Byron York, NR’s White House correspondent, is the author of the book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They’ll Try Even Harder Next Time.
And a landslide in West Virginia doesn’t hurt.
By Byron York
If the Democratic presidential race were a runaway, if Barack Obama were, say, 1,500 delegates ahead of Hillary Clinton, then there would likely not be so many anguished cries for Clinton to quit the race.
Just look at 1992. Bill Clinton is fond of saying he didn’t wrap up the Democratic nomination until June 2 of that year, when he won the California primary. That’s technically true, but Clinton was the clear winner long before that. Nevertheless, former California Gov. Jerry Brown stubbornly stayed in the race, even though going into June 2, he had 388 delegates to Clinton’s 2,059. (Clinton’s total was, at the time, 86 short of locking up the nomination.)
Brown hadn’t been taken seriously since losing the New York primary on April 7, but he kept at it. His campaign became so quixotic that in late May, during a visit to an elementary school in South Central Los Angeles, a nine year-old asked him, “What do you plan to do to get more delegates to win this campaign?” “That’s a very good question,” Brown answered, according to an Associated Press report. “What do you think we should do?”
There was no good answer, but who cared? Brown could stay in as long as he liked because his presence didn’t really matter. But Hillary Clinton’s campaign, which is not only not 1,500 delegates behind Barack Obama but might, by some reckoning, catch up with him in the popular vote total — and in any event remains excruciatingly close to Obama in all measures — is different. Obama’s supporters, in the campaign, in the Democratic party, and in the press are desperate for her to leave the race precisely because her support is so substantial; her continued presence is a daily reminder of how profoundly divided the party is at this moment.
Her landslide 67-26 victory over Obama in West Virginia — she won by 147,410 votes — won’t change that situation. The oft-repeated fact that no Democrat since 1916 has won the White House without winning West Virginia won’t change it, either. But together, those two facts show just how far Democrats have ventured into uncharted territory this year. If Obama is to win the White House, he’ll have to do it in a brand-new way, winning states that Democrats haven’t won lately with diminished support in states that have been important to Democratic victories in the past. Clinton’s campaign reminds Democrats of that, and it makes some of them nervous.
The West Virginia results were as across-the-board as you can get. She won 57-34 among men and 70-24 among women. She won 64-25 among voters who attend church more than once a week and 64-34 among voters who never go to church. She won 69-24 among voters without a college degree and 54-39 among voters with a degree. She won 69-25 among voters who make less than $50,000 a year and 58-34 among voters who make more than that. She won 65-28 among voters who think the economy is the most important issue, 57-37 among voters who think the war in Iraq is the most important issue, and 68-23 among voters who think health care is the most important issue. She won 67-26 among white voters. (We don’t know the breakdown among black voters, because they were too few in number — West Virginia is 95 percent white — for exit pollsters to calculate, although results in other states suggest that blacks probably voted 90-plus percent for Obama.) She won 67-25 among voters who have a union member in their household and 63-31 among voters who don’t. She won 56-38 among voters under 30 years old, 63-27 among voters between 30 and 44 years old, 65-27 among voters between 45 and 59 years old, and 68-28 among voters 60 and older. Among all voters, 70 percent want the campaign to continue, against just 24 percent who want it to end as soon as possible.
It’s no wonder Obama didn’t give a speech last night. But Clinton did, and she made it clear that the Democrats who are just dying for her to leave the race will have to just die for a while longer.
“Now, there are some who have wanted to cut this race short,” she told supporters in Charleston. “They say, ‘Give up. It’s too hard. The mountain is too high.’ But here in West Virginia, you know a thing or two about rough roads to the top of the mountain. . . . I am more determined than ever to carry on this campaign until everyone has had a chance to make their voices heard.”
Clinton repeated her insistence that delegates from Florida and Michigan — “all of their delegates” — be seated. “I believe we should honor the votes cast by 2.3 million people in those states,” she said. Her demand was pooh-poohed in some circles of the commentariat, but the question for Democrats is: Why is that such a radioactive proposition? This is the party that got rather excited over 537 votes in Florida in 2000, the party that would like to pass something called the Count Every Vote Act, the party that has consistently favored greater enfranchisement over stricter enforcement of the rules (and sometimes the law). Sure, Clinton wants to change the agreement that existed going in to Florida and Michigan, but circumstances have changed, too. Since when have Democrats been such sticklers for unbending rules? Why do so many in the party insist that millions of votes in two key states be counted only if they don’t matter — that is, if the result is a fait accompli — and not be counted if they do?
If they were counted now — even if some of them were counted now — things might be quite different. According to the Real Clear Politics total, when one includes estimated vote totals in caucus states (a factor which favors Obama) plus results from Florida (which favor Clinton), but nothing from Michigan, where Obama’s name was not on the ballot, Obama’s lead in the national popular vote is 411,915. That figure is less than Obama’s margin of victory in his home of Cook County, Illinois, where, according to the Illinois Board of Elections, Obama won by 429,052 votes. By other counts, Obama’s lead is far less than his winning margin in Cook County. In other words, take away Cook County and Obama is the loser in the national popular vote race. He’s the president of Chicago.
Nevertheless, the Obama steamroller goes on. “This race, I believe, is over,” former Democratic party chairman — and Clinton supporter — Roy Romer told reporters on an Obama conference call Tuesday morning. “It is time for the party to unify, to get beyond the primary season, and to begin the general election.” His words echo those of dozens of top party figures in recent weeks. But they haven’t quite answered Hillary Clinton’s fundamental question: Why?
—
Byron York, NR’s White House correspondent, is the author of the book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They’ll Try Even Harder Next Time.
Clinton sounds note of defiance
Clinton sounds note of defiance
By Jamie Coomarasamy
BBC News, Charleston, West Virginia
The contrast couldn't have been greater. A week ago, in Indianapolis, I had watched Hillary Clinton's victory party run its full course, well before the New York Senator's narrow win in that night's Indiana primary had been officially confirmed.
Here in Charleston, West Virginia, most of the Clinton partygoers were still queuing outside the venue, the Civic Center, when the result was called by the US networks.
If last week's victory was a squeak, this week's was a roar. A two-to-one win over Barack Obama in a state which - as Senator Clinton has frequently reminded her supporters - no successful Democratic candidate for the White House has lost in nearly a century. And that includes, of course, her husband, Bill.
Her most recent reminder came in a victory speech that was more defiant in tone than the one she had given in Indianapolis last week.
Standing alone on stage, she used the kind of metaphors that might be expected in the Mountain State. The people of West Virginia, she said, knew about "the rough roads to the top of the mountain".
'Nay sayers'
And she made it clear that she intended to stay in the primary contest until the last votes were cast - not only because she owed it to her millions of supporters across the country but, more importantly, because she still believed that she was the strongest candidate, the best-placed Democrat to win the crucial swing states in November's general election.
Criticising what she called "the pundits and the nay sayers", who had pronounced her campaign dead after last week's results, she directed her remarks - rather more explicitly than in the past, it seemed - at those uncommitted super-delegates, the party officials whose votes will decide the nomination.
She called on them to exercise their "awesome responsibility" carefully, to weigh up which of the two remaining candidates was best placed to win in the general election.
So can she convince enough of them to publicly support her, or even to defect from Barack Obama's camp? Her victories in the recent Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana primaries haven't achieved that goal, which, as her campaign manager, Terry McAuliffe admitted, is her only realistic path to victory.
Super support
In fact, she has continued to lose support from those crucial super-delegates over the past few weeks. This has prompted supposedly neutral figures in the party to begin referring to Barack Obama as the Democrats' "likely nominee".
But West Virginia provided a good example of one of the hurdles that the Illinois Senator will face should he stop being the party's almost-presumptive nominee and become its actual candidate.
In the coal mining town of Logan, where Senator Clinton made one of her last campaign stops before election day, Democratic voters spoke openly about their reluctance to vote for an African-American.
Several said they might switch their allegiance to the Republican candidate John McCain, if Hillary Clinton didn't prevail in the nominating process.
The exit polls seem to confirm that tendency. Around a fifth of the state's predominantly white Democratic primary voters admitted that the issue of race had played a role in their choice of candidate. This was a higher figure than in almost any other state.
Of course, it's hard to tell how many of those voters really will break with generations-old Democratic traditions and favour Mr McCain in November, but it's safe to assume that some will.
Among them, I would guess, will be 77-year-old Miss Hale, who told me in Yesterdays diner in Logan that she didn't like Obama's "Muslim faith" and Eugene, who casually mentioned - as he was sitting in the barber's chair - that his father didn't want blacks in his house, let alone in the White House.
Story from BBC NEWS:
By Jamie Coomarasamy
BBC News, Charleston, West Virginia
The contrast couldn't have been greater. A week ago, in Indianapolis, I had watched Hillary Clinton's victory party run its full course, well before the New York Senator's narrow win in that night's Indiana primary had been officially confirmed.
Here in Charleston, West Virginia, most of the Clinton partygoers were still queuing outside the venue, the Civic Center, when the result was called by the US networks.
If last week's victory was a squeak, this week's was a roar. A two-to-one win over Barack Obama in a state which - as Senator Clinton has frequently reminded her supporters - no successful Democratic candidate for the White House has lost in nearly a century. And that includes, of course, her husband, Bill.
Her most recent reminder came in a victory speech that was more defiant in tone than the one she had given in Indianapolis last week.
Standing alone on stage, she used the kind of metaphors that might be expected in the Mountain State. The people of West Virginia, she said, knew about "the rough roads to the top of the mountain".
'Nay sayers'
And she made it clear that she intended to stay in the primary contest until the last votes were cast - not only because she owed it to her millions of supporters across the country but, more importantly, because she still believed that she was the strongest candidate, the best-placed Democrat to win the crucial swing states in November's general election.
Criticising what she called "the pundits and the nay sayers", who had pronounced her campaign dead after last week's results, she directed her remarks - rather more explicitly than in the past, it seemed - at those uncommitted super-delegates, the party officials whose votes will decide the nomination.
She called on them to exercise their "awesome responsibility" carefully, to weigh up which of the two remaining candidates was best placed to win in the general election.
So can she convince enough of them to publicly support her, or even to defect from Barack Obama's camp? Her victories in the recent Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana primaries haven't achieved that goal, which, as her campaign manager, Terry McAuliffe admitted, is her only realistic path to victory.
Super support
In fact, she has continued to lose support from those crucial super-delegates over the past few weeks. This has prompted supposedly neutral figures in the party to begin referring to Barack Obama as the Democrats' "likely nominee".
But West Virginia provided a good example of one of the hurdles that the Illinois Senator will face should he stop being the party's almost-presumptive nominee and become its actual candidate.
In the coal mining town of Logan, where Senator Clinton made one of her last campaign stops before election day, Democratic voters spoke openly about their reluctance to vote for an African-American.
Several said they might switch their allegiance to the Republican candidate John McCain, if Hillary Clinton didn't prevail in the nominating process.
The exit polls seem to confirm that tendency. Around a fifth of the state's predominantly white Democratic primary voters admitted that the issue of race had played a role in their choice of candidate. This was a higher figure than in almost any other state.
Of course, it's hard to tell how many of those voters really will break with generations-old Democratic traditions and favour Mr McCain in November, but it's safe to assume that some will.
Among them, I would guess, will be 77-year-old Miss Hale, who told me in Yesterdays diner in Logan that she didn't like Obama's "Muslim faith" and Eugene, who casually mentioned - as he was sitting in the barber's chair - that his father didn't want blacks in his house, let alone in the White House.
Story from BBC NEWS:
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Taylor enjoying opportunity to win
Taylor enjoying opportunity to win
By Jason Cole, Yahoo! Sports May 12, 1:09 pm EDT
Yahoo! Sports
LOS ANGELES – Jason Taylor has never been this close to a championship in his professional career. This may be dancing, not football, but winning is winning.
That helps explain the hardened, competitive smile of satisfaction that crossed his face approximately an hour after the latest episode of ABC’s “Dancing With The Stars.” He was changing quickly in his makeup trailer as he bantered with wife Katina, agent Gary Wichard and some friends from Florida who came to town for the show.
Katina then interjected about how much Taylor was really starting to enjoy it, getting into the artistry of the dancing and the action. That’s when someone else blurted, “Really, you love to win.”
“No question,” Taylor said, emphatically, that smile punctuating the moment as he hustled to get ready for a post-show party. Taylor, who is shooting to stardom at a rapid rate even by Hollywood standards, can’t get enough of the success he has had over the past two months of dancing. Success that has eluded him as one of the top defensive ends in the NFL for the past 11 years while playing nobly for a Miami Dolphins franchise that has drifted more like a lost whale the past six years.
Photo Taylor received the Walter Payton Award before Super Bowl XLII.
(AP Photo/David J. Phillip)
On Monday night, DWTS begins its final four. The four stars – Taylor, Kristi Yamaguchi, Cristïan de la Fuente and Marissa Jaret Winokur – and their partners will do two more dances each. Three judges will weigh-in during the show and then the viewing public votes before the final three are announced Tuesday night. The final three will then go through the process one last time next week for the title. Taylor, who has consistently ranked among the top two vote getters each week, looks like a strong favorite for the title.
This is a place Taylor has never been as a football player, even as he has carved out a career worthy of at least Hall of Fame discussion. In 2006, he was voted the best defensive player in the NFL. In 2007, he was named the league’s Man of the Year for his charitable endeavors, which includes a reading program for kids he runs and continues to build in South Florida.
For all those wonderful accomplishments, there has been little of the success that Taylor truly craves. The Dolphins have never made it past the second round of the playoffs in his career. Instead, the team has deteriorated consistently under the questionable leadership of men like Dave Wannstedt, Nick Saban and Cam Cameron.
Now, even though Taylor initially thought the idea of going on DWTS was silly, he’s being pushed by his competitive nature and the challenge to succeed.
“You know why I work so hard at this? Twenty million people, that’s why,” Taylor said, describing the eight-to-12 hours a day he spends working with partner Edyta Sliwinska. “At first, I just wanted to make it through the first show, not get eliminated or look bad. I didn’t want to embarrass myself.
“But as I’ve gone along, I’ve gotten into it. Maybe not the weird outfits with the sequins, but you take on that challenge to become the character you’re portraying in the dance. You have that short period of time and you just want to nail it … This is so much harder for me than football. I know what I’m doing on a football field, I’ve done it so long. Here, I don’t know what I’m doing, but I love the challenge of trying it.”
Photo ABC’s “Dancing with the Stars” contestants Edyta Sliwinska and Jason Taylor at the studio.
(AP Photo/ABC, Michael Desmond)
Of course, there are other huge benefits. Or as Taylor said last week, “It’s a great springboard.”
At 33, he knows football is closer to the end than the beginning. Under Wichard’s supervision, Taylor has carefully plotted a course toward a career in entertainment. A career that figures to be far more than simply as a talking head for a football show.
In just two months on DWTS, Taylor is not only winning, he’s winning fans who had never heard of him before. In the process, he has become an instant sex symbol.
Wichard picked up a copy of this week’s People, featuring the magazine’s annual list of the 100 World’s Most Beautiful People. There on page 131, gracing a full page (not even Patrick Dempsey, George Clooney or Brad Pitt got their own page) is Taylor.
“We’ve been trying for five years to get into this,” Wichard said. “All the years in the NFL … it took one week on ‘Dancing With The Stars’.”
Check the line of women waiting after the show in the studio Tuesday night. Approximately 45 minutes after most of the audience had cleared, about a dozen women ranging from their mid-20s to mid-60s flocked to Taylor one-by-one for photos with him. The first lady looked more grandmother than grand dame, her tresses full of gray. Her attitude, however, was deliciously playful.
“Forty years ago, you and I would have had a thing,” the unidentified fan said. Taylor indulged her Norma Desmond fantasy with a smile as he leaned in for the photo. Taylor has already learned well to feed the fantasy just enough to keep the fans coming back.
And for fans not privileged enough to share an up-close-and-personal moment with Taylor, his publicity firm, world-renowned Rogers & Cowan, has magazines like Details, Maxim and Essence ready to do fashion shoots. GQ wanted an exclusive shoot, but Wichard turned it down because the magazine had snubbed Taylor years ago. Taylor’s movie agent Patrick Whitesell, representative of Hugh Jackman, Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, could get Taylor a couple of movie deals in five minutes if he had the go-ahead, according to Wichard.
Taylor has been on “The Tonight Show” with Jay Leno, talked shop with Denzel Washington and Al Pacino. On Tuesday, when DWTS celebrated its 100th show, Taylor talked with dozens of folks at the post-party. Among them was Dallas Mavericks owner and billionaire Mark Cuban, a DWTS alum. Taylor and Cuban chatted for 10 minutes and set up a time to meet in South Florida.
“That’s a person who wants to help with what we’re doing in South Florida,” Taylor said, referring to his charity, the Jason Taylor Foundation. “That’s a great connection to have.”
Sadly, both the Dolphins and the NFL have badly missed the boat on this experience. Instead of supporting Taylor, the Dolphins are at odds with him, angry that Taylor is doing this and angry that he wants to be traded from the organization, according to sources close to the player.
The NFL has used Jason Taylor for its liking, but hasn’t reciprocated when Taylor could use the league’s help. Last year, Taylor spent time going to London to help promote the league’s first regular season game ever played in Europe. He also has traveled to Iraq and Germany at the request of the NFL to help support American troops.
Now, however, with Taylor trying to win on DWTS, the league has done nothing to help him. There’s nothing on the league’s website on how to vote for Taylor (call 800-868-3402 is easiest, although you can text or log-in to vote) or that he’s even competing. The only time the NFL Network, the league’s in-house television property, wanted to interview Taylor about the show was after news broke that Taylor wanted to be traded. Wichard politely turned down the obvious ploy.
Of course, Taylor doesn’t talk about any of that these days.
“I’m having so much fun experiencing this stuff. I’m really loving it,” said Taylor, sipping on a drink at The Day After, a club in Hollywood just down the road from the house in Beverly Hills he and his family are renting. “I know I’m going to catch hell from my teammates for this stuff, but that’s OK.”
For Taylor, life is good. He’s winning, finally.
By Jason Cole, Yahoo! Sports May 12, 1:09 pm EDT
Yahoo! Sports
LOS ANGELES – Jason Taylor has never been this close to a championship in his professional career. This may be dancing, not football, but winning is winning.
That helps explain the hardened, competitive smile of satisfaction that crossed his face approximately an hour after the latest episode of ABC’s “Dancing With The Stars.” He was changing quickly in his makeup trailer as he bantered with wife Katina, agent Gary Wichard and some friends from Florida who came to town for the show.
Katina then interjected about how much Taylor was really starting to enjoy it, getting into the artistry of the dancing and the action. That’s when someone else blurted, “Really, you love to win.”
“No question,” Taylor said, emphatically, that smile punctuating the moment as he hustled to get ready for a post-show party. Taylor, who is shooting to stardom at a rapid rate even by Hollywood standards, can’t get enough of the success he has had over the past two months of dancing. Success that has eluded him as one of the top defensive ends in the NFL for the past 11 years while playing nobly for a Miami Dolphins franchise that has drifted more like a lost whale the past six years.
Photo Taylor received the Walter Payton Award before Super Bowl XLII.
(AP Photo/David J. Phillip)
On Monday night, DWTS begins its final four. The four stars – Taylor, Kristi Yamaguchi, Cristïan de la Fuente and Marissa Jaret Winokur – and their partners will do two more dances each. Three judges will weigh-in during the show and then the viewing public votes before the final three are announced Tuesday night. The final three will then go through the process one last time next week for the title. Taylor, who has consistently ranked among the top two vote getters each week, looks like a strong favorite for the title.
This is a place Taylor has never been as a football player, even as he has carved out a career worthy of at least Hall of Fame discussion. In 2006, he was voted the best defensive player in the NFL. In 2007, he was named the league’s Man of the Year for his charitable endeavors, which includes a reading program for kids he runs and continues to build in South Florida.
For all those wonderful accomplishments, there has been little of the success that Taylor truly craves. The Dolphins have never made it past the second round of the playoffs in his career. Instead, the team has deteriorated consistently under the questionable leadership of men like Dave Wannstedt, Nick Saban and Cam Cameron.
Now, even though Taylor initially thought the idea of going on DWTS was silly, he’s being pushed by his competitive nature and the challenge to succeed.
“You know why I work so hard at this? Twenty million people, that’s why,” Taylor said, describing the eight-to-12 hours a day he spends working with partner Edyta Sliwinska. “At first, I just wanted to make it through the first show, not get eliminated or look bad. I didn’t want to embarrass myself.
“But as I’ve gone along, I’ve gotten into it. Maybe not the weird outfits with the sequins, but you take on that challenge to become the character you’re portraying in the dance. You have that short period of time and you just want to nail it … This is so much harder for me than football. I know what I’m doing on a football field, I’ve done it so long. Here, I don’t know what I’m doing, but I love the challenge of trying it.”
Photo ABC’s “Dancing with the Stars” contestants Edyta Sliwinska and Jason Taylor at the studio.
(AP Photo/ABC, Michael Desmond)
Of course, there are other huge benefits. Or as Taylor said last week, “It’s a great springboard.”
At 33, he knows football is closer to the end than the beginning. Under Wichard’s supervision, Taylor has carefully plotted a course toward a career in entertainment. A career that figures to be far more than simply as a talking head for a football show.
In just two months on DWTS, Taylor is not only winning, he’s winning fans who had never heard of him before. In the process, he has become an instant sex symbol.
Wichard picked up a copy of this week’s People, featuring the magazine’s annual list of the 100 World’s Most Beautiful People. There on page 131, gracing a full page (not even Patrick Dempsey, George Clooney or Brad Pitt got their own page) is Taylor.
“We’ve been trying for five years to get into this,” Wichard said. “All the years in the NFL … it took one week on ‘Dancing With The Stars’.”
Check the line of women waiting after the show in the studio Tuesday night. Approximately 45 minutes after most of the audience had cleared, about a dozen women ranging from their mid-20s to mid-60s flocked to Taylor one-by-one for photos with him. The first lady looked more grandmother than grand dame, her tresses full of gray. Her attitude, however, was deliciously playful.
“Forty years ago, you and I would have had a thing,” the unidentified fan said. Taylor indulged her Norma Desmond fantasy with a smile as he leaned in for the photo. Taylor has already learned well to feed the fantasy just enough to keep the fans coming back.
And for fans not privileged enough to share an up-close-and-personal moment with Taylor, his publicity firm, world-renowned Rogers & Cowan, has magazines like Details, Maxim and Essence ready to do fashion shoots. GQ wanted an exclusive shoot, but Wichard turned it down because the magazine had snubbed Taylor years ago. Taylor’s movie agent Patrick Whitesell, representative of Hugh Jackman, Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, could get Taylor a couple of movie deals in five minutes if he had the go-ahead, according to Wichard.
Taylor has been on “The Tonight Show” with Jay Leno, talked shop with Denzel Washington and Al Pacino. On Tuesday, when DWTS celebrated its 100th show, Taylor talked with dozens of folks at the post-party. Among them was Dallas Mavericks owner and billionaire Mark Cuban, a DWTS alum. Taylor and Cuban chatted for 10 minutes and set up a time to meet in South Florida.
“That’s a person who wants to help with what we’re doing in South Florida,” Taylor said, referring to his charity, the Jason Taylor Foundation. “That’s a great connection to have.”
Sadly, both the Dolphins and the NFL have badly missed the boat on this experience. Instead of supporting Taylor, the Dolphins are at odds with him, angry that Taylor is doing this and angry that he wants to be traded from the organization, according to sources close to the player.
The NFL has used Jason Taylor for its liking, but hasn’t reciprocated when Taylor could use the league’s help. Last year, Taylor spent time going to London to help promote the league’s first regular season game ever played in Europe. He also has traveled to Iraq and Germany at the request of the NFL to help support American troops.
Now, however, with Taylor trying to win on DWTS, the league has done nothing to help him. There’s nothing on the league’s website on how to vote for Taylor (call 800-868-3402 is easiest, although you can text or log-in to vote) or that he’s even competing. The only time the NFL Network, the league’s in-house television property, wanted to interview Taylor about the show was after news broke that Taylor wanted to be traded. Wichard politely turned down the obvious ploy.
Of course, Taylor doesn’t talk about any of that these days.
“I’m having so much fun experiencing this stuff. I’m really loving it,” said Taylor, sipping on a drink at The Day After, a club in Hollywood just down the road from the house in Beverly Hills he and his family are renting. “I know I’m going to catch hell from my teammates for this stuff, but that’s OK.”
For Taylor, life is good. He’s winning, finally.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
10 Quotes on the Joys of Motherhood
By Myriam Gabriel-Pollock
Why do athletes always look into the camera and say, "Hi, Mom"? Why are florists working overtime every Mother's Day? Why do people always thank their mother when they receive an award? Because behind any successful and happy person, chances are good that you'll find a great mom! Enjoy these quotes on the joys of motherhood and the inspiration that moms give their kids.
A mother's love for her child is like nothing else in the world. It knows no law, no pity. It dares all things and crushes down remorselessly all that stands in its path.
-- Agatha Christie (1890-1976), English novelist and playwright.
When you are a mother, you are never really alone in your thoughts. You are connected to your child and to all those who touch your lives. A mother always has to think twice: once of herself and once for her child.
-- Sophia Loren (1934- ), Italian motion-picture actor.
We are together, my child and I. Mother and child, yes, but sisters really, against whatever denies us all that we are.
-- Alice Walker (1944- ), American author and poet.
A mother's arms are more comforting than anyone else's.
-- Princess Diana (1961-1997), Princess of Wales from 1981 to 1997.
There never was a woman like her. She was gentle as a dove and brave as a lioness. The memory of my mother and her teachings were, after all, the only capital I had to start life with, and on that capital I have made my way.
-- Andrew Jackson (1767-1845), seventh president of the United States (1829-1837).
When a child enters the world through you it alters everything on a psychic, psychological and purely practical level.
-- Jane Fonda (1937- ), American motion-picture actor, political activist, and writer and producer of exercise books and videos.
If you bungle raising your children, I don't think whatever else you do well matters very much.
-- Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis (1929-1994), wife of the 35th president of the United States, John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
It is not until you become a mother that your judgment slowly turns to compassion and understanding.
-- Erma Bombeck (1927-1996), American newspaper columnist and author.
Motherhood has a very humanizing effect. Everything gets reduced to essentials.
-- Meryl Streep (1949- ), American motion-picture actor.
The strength of motherhood is greater than natural laws.
-- Barbara Kingsolver (1955- ), American author.
Why do athletes always look into the camera and say, "Hi, Mom"? Why are florists working overtime every Mother's Day? Why do people always thank their mother when they receive an award? Because behind any successful and happy person, chances are good that you'll find a great mom! Enjoy these quotes on the joys of motherhood and the inspiration that moms give their kids.
A mother's love for her child is like nothing else in the world. It knows no law, no pity. It dares all things and crushes down remorselessly all that stands in its path.
-- Agatha Christie (1890-1976), English novelist and playwright.
When you are a mother, you are never really alone in your thoughts. You are connected to your child and to all those who touch your lives. A mother always has to think twice: once of herself and once for her child.
-- Sophia Loren (1934- ), Italian motion-picture actor.
We are together, my child and I. Mother and child, yes, but sisters really, against whatever denies us all that we are.
-- Alice Walker (1944- ), American author and poet.
A mother's arms are more comforting than anyone else's.
-- Princess Diana (1961-1997), Princess of Wales from 1981 to 1997.
There never was a woman like her. She was gentle as a dove and brave as a lioness. The memory of my mother and her teachings were, after all, the only capital I had to start life with, and on that capital I have made my way.
-- Andrew Jackson (1767-1845), seventh president of the United States (1829-1837).
When a child enters the world through you it alters everything on a psychic, psychological and purely practical level.
-- Jane Fonda (1937- ), American motion-picture actor, political activist, and writer and producer of exercise books and videos.
If you bungle raising your children, I don't think whatever else you do well matters very much.
-- Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis (1929-1994), wife of the 35th president of the United States, John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
It is not until you become a mother that your judgment slowly turns to compassion and understanding.
-- Erma Bombeck (1927-1996), American newspaper columnist and author.
Motherhood has a very humanizing effect. Everything gets reduced to essentials.
-- Meryl Streep (1949- ), American motion-picture actor.
The strength of motherhood is greater than natural laws.
-- Barbara Kingsolver (1955- ), American author.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Least talented contestant goes home on ‘Idol’
Least talented contestant goes home on ‘Idol’
Jason Castro seemed like he’d gotten in way over his head
COMMENTARY
By Craig Berman
MSNBC contributor
updated 11:05 p.m. ET, Wed., May. 7, 2008
It’s been a tough week for “American Idol,” which made the news for its declining viewership and the unfortunate Paula Abdul comments on last week’s show stand out that much more. Fortunately, the “Idol” fans helped make things a little brighter for the show’s final two weeks by evicting the contestant who least deserved to be in the final three.
It was obvious after Tuesday night that Jason Castro was ready to go. He struggled with his first song, forgot the words to his second, and didn’t make any case for himself to stay in the post-performance interviews with Ryan Seacrest. Had he made it into the final three after a night like that, the scrutiny on both him and the show would have only increased.
Over the past few weeks, Castro has had the look of someone who entered a contest on a dare only to find himself drawn in way too deep for comfort. As the going got tougher and the demands kept increasing, Castro had a harder time keeping up with the competition.
That doesn’t mean he won’t make it in the business. His sound translates well to both radio and the stage, he has a likeable personality, and he could easily wind up with the best musical career of the remaining finalists. Kellie Pickler was the resident “Idol” doofus two seasons ago and has done just fine since, using both her personality and her voice.
On Tuesday night, however, Castro sounded much closer to Sanjaya Malakar, the finalist a year ago who made news for lasting much longer than anyone had expected. In fact, Castro’s two Tuesday performances were a lot worse than anything managed during Malakar’s time on the show. While other contestants have put up poor performances even after making the finals, Castro’s effort on Tuesday was the worst ever at this stage of the competition.
Even that might have been forgivable if Castro gave the impression that he was trying at all. Instead, he did the opposite.
‘I shot the Tambourine Man’
Nobody really knows how hard Castro worked each week. It’s very possible that he was staying up into the wee hours of the morning every day making sure his performance would be as good as it could possibly be.
On Wednesday’s show, he admitted that it was getting tougher for him and cited his inexperience as a hurdle. Each week, it seemed like he was unfamiliar with the material (not knowing that the musical “Cats” involved songs sung by characters portraying cats was a particular highlight), so he may have had to fight as hard as everyone else just to perform as well as he has.
But his stage persona gave off the opposite impression. He’d always played the happy-go-lucky dude who looked like he just woke up, grabbed his guitar, and belted out some random song. He smiled gratefully when complimented and sheepishly when criticized, but never looked like he belonged. That came through in his performances, as he always smiled and played to the audience as though they were sharing an inside joke.
On Wednesday, in response to a caller question about the contestants’ most challenging experience on “Idol,” Castro answered “Uhhh … the brain being dead.” Later, as he stood onstage in the bottom two with Syesha Mercado, he quipped “Somebody told me that I shot the Tambourine Man yesterday. I thought that was pretty funny.”
But he also said that he had followed Simon Cowell’s advice and packed his suitcase. He was ready to go, and the viewers kindly sent him on his way.
Jason Castro seemed like he’d gotten in way over his head
COMMENTARY
By Craig Berman
MSNBC contributor
updated 11:05 p.m. ET, Wed., May. 7, 2008
It’s been a tough week for “American Idol,” which made the news for its declining viewership and the unfortunate Paula Abdul comments on last week’s show stand out that much more. Fortunately, the “Idol” fans helped make things a little brighter for the show’s final two weeks by evicting the contestant who least deserved to be in the final three.
It was obvious after Tuesday night that Jason Castro was ready to go. He struggled with his first song, forgot the words to his second, and didn’t make any case for himself to stay in the post-performance interviews with Ryan Seacrest. Had he made it into the final three after a night like that, the scrutiny on both him and the show would have only increased.
Over the past few weeks, Castro has had the look of someone who entered a contest on a dare only to find himself drawn in way too deep for comfort. As the going got tougher and the demands kept increasing, Castro had a harder time keeping up with the competition.
That doesn’t mean he won’t make it in the business. His sound translates well to both radio and the stage, he has a likeable personality, and he could easily wind up with the best musical career of the remaining finalists. Kellie Pickler was the resident “Idol” doofus two seasons ago and has done just fine since, using both her personality and her voice.
On Tuesday night, however, Castro sounded much closer to Sanjaya Malakar, the finalist a year ago who made news for lasting much longer than anyone had expected. In fact, Castro’s two Tuesday performances were a lot worse than anything managed during Malakar’s time on the show. While other contestants have put up poor performances even after making the finals, Castro’s effort on Tuesday was the worst ever at this stage of the competition.
Even that might have been forgivable if Castro gave the impression that he was trying at all. Instead, he did the opposite.
‘I shot the Tambourine Man’
Nobody really knows how hard Castro worked each week. It’s very possible that he was staying up into the wee hours of the morning every day making sure his performance would be as good as it could possibly be.
On Wednesday’s show, he admitted that it was getting tougher for him and cited his inexperience as a hurdle. Each week, it seemed like he was unfamiliar with the material (not knowing that the musical “Cats” involved songs sung by characters portraying cats was a particular highlight), so he may have had to fight as hard as everyone else just to perform as well as he has.
But his stage persona gave off the opposite impression. He’d always played the happy-go-lucky dude who looked like he just woke up, grabbed his guitar, and belted out some random song. He smiled gratefully when complimented and sheepishly when criticized, but never looked like he belonged. That came through in his performances, as he always smiled and played to the audience as though they were sharing an inside joke.
On Wednesday, in response to a caller question about the contestants’ most challenging experience on “Idol,” Castro answered “Uhhh … the brain being dead.” Later, as he stood onstage in the bottom two with Syesha Mercado, he quipped “Somebody told me that I shot the Tambourine Man yesterday. I thought that was pretty funny.”
But he also said that he had followed Simon Cowell’s advice and packed his suitcase. He was ready to go, and the viewers kindly sent him on his way.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
‘Dancing’ costumes cha-cha for charity
Q: I am a huge fan of "Dancing With the Stars." I was wondering what they do with all the costumes once the show is over. Do they keep them, donate them, or do the stars/professionals keep them? — Rhonda, Grand Rapids, Mich.
A: The costume designer, Randall Christensen, sells the garments on his Web site. In other words, you can own the dresses you've seen on the show, even if they're over-the-top or the subject of criticism from the judges or the dancers themselves.
Christensen, the show's Emmy-winning costume designer, issued a press release before this season began, and it said dresses from "Dancing With the Stars" "have become available online for purchase to dancing enthusiasts at his Web site, a trend he intends to continue once the upcoming season draws to a close. ... By auctioning off dresses worn by the stars during previous seasons, Randall is able to donate proceeds from those auctions to various charities, such as organizations supporting the fight against AIDS."
Right now, only dresses for seasons two through five are available, although many have been sold. Those from season five are priced between about $2,000 and $5,000 each. If that seems high, a lot of work goes into each dress. Last spring, The Insider visited Christensen in the costume room and reported that "it's not unusual to spend 12 hours stitching beads on a single gown."
By the way, the celebrities and dancers don't dance in their costumes until the day of the live show. That's because they all have to be made from scratch in less than a week. The dancing couples meet with Christensen to brainstorm ideas, and then while they're rehearsing their performances, the costume designers are working.
A: The costume designer, Randall Christensen, sells the garments on his Web site. In other words, you can own the dresses you've seen on the show, even if they're over-the-top or the subject of criticism from the judges or the dancers themselves.
Christensen, the show's Emmy-winning costume designer, issued a press release before this season began, and it said dresses from "Dancing With the Stars" "have become available online for purchase to dancing enthusiasts at his Web site, a trend he intends to continue once the upcoming season draws to a close. ... By auctioning off dresses worn by the stars during previous seasons, Randall is able to donate proceeds from those auctions to various charities, such as organizations supporting the fight against AIDS."
Right now, only dresses for seasons two through five are available, although many have been sold. Those from season five are priced between about $2,000 and $5,000 each. If that seems high, a lot of work goes into each dress. Last spring, The Insider visited Christensen in the costume room and reported that "it's not unusual to spend 12 hours stitching beads on a single gown."
By the way, the celebrities and dancers don't dance in their costumes until the day of the live show. That's because they all have to be made from scratch in less than a week. The dancing couples meet with Christensen to brainstorm ideas, and then while they're rehearsing their performances, the costume designers are working.
anony
It is definitely either Marissa or Jason's time. Marissa is improving, but she really struggled tonight with her dances. Jason has a large wingspan and is graceful, but he is a terrible latin dancer. That is what took down Shannon Elizabeth. Mario is good, but he lacks a defining dance. Christian sello su lugar en el final (sealed his place in the final) with the dance. Marissa's clock has struck midnight.
Injured arm doesn’t stop Cristián on ‘Dancing’
Injured arm doesn’t stop Cristián on ‘Dancing’
Against the odds, last week’s last place dancer tops the leaderboard
COMMENTARY
By Ree Hines
MSNBC contributor
updated 11:46 p.m. ET, Mon., May. 5, 2008
Just like last week, the celebrity hoofers from “Dancing With the Stars” took on both ballroom basics and Latin routines Monday night. To mix things up this time around, the stars had a chance to add a little more excitement and occasional altitude to the usual steps, thanks to judge Len Goodman’s recently enacted lenient lift rule. But the real action didn’t come from the dancers’ newfound freedom to toss their partners into the air.
The biggest moves of the night were on the leaderboard. It wasn’t just that Kristi Yamaguchi landed a second-place repeat, or even the fact that Jason Taylor wasn’t the one to steal her spot. No, this time, the surprise was how an injured Cristián de la Fuente managed to steal the show with one arm tied behind his back.
Getting into the groove
When the evening kicked off Kristi faced her first chance to reclaim her “Dancing” queen status. She said the abrupt end to her six-week streak left her more determined than ever before, and that inspired effort showed in her quickstep. The only unfortunate choice in the dance was the long, leg-obscuring gown Kristi wore, as it minimized the view of her precision footwork. The number closed with Mark Ballas hefting her onto his shoulder in the first and most modest lift of the evening.
Both Len and Bruno Tonioli praised the dance, complimenting the varied tempo and flow, but Carrie Ann Inaba, no longer able to wax annoying about lift infractions, claimed Kristi started the routine out of synch. The other panelists looked at Carrie Ann like she was out of her mind.
The one point knocked off for that hard-to-spot (and likely non-existent) synch issue, left Kristi heading into the next dance with a 29. Unfortunately, the samba wasn’t a worthy follow up. Despite some impressive spins, the awkward, body-shaking number fell flat with the judges and only managed a meager 26 points.
In rehearsals, Mario worked on his big ballroom weakness, stiffness — as in not enough of it. Karina Smirnoff played posture taskmaster until she deemed him, “almost as stiff as rusty old Len.” Way to kiss up to the head judge, Karina.
The two took the floor for a not-so-limber Viennese waltz, and aced it. Showing more control in the waltz than his faulty foxtrot last week, Mario moved with grace and only minimal foot flubs. Len said watching Mario dance was usually like watching Britney Spears get out of a car, “It’s not very elegant. Sometimes you see things you’d rather not,” but he added, “Tonight I thought that was marvelous.”
And the set of nines from the judges backed that up. In an almost repeat, Mario scored just one point less for his jive effort. Though Bruno applauded the rock ’n roll, youthful feel of the dance, Len didn’t care for it. Still, with 53 out of 60 overall, it could have been worse.
Falling behind
Undaunted by her bottom two finish last week, Marissa Jaret Winokur is in it to win it. “When I started out, I just wanted to prove that you didn’t have to be a size 2 to dance,” she said in rehearsals. “Now that I’ve gotten this far, I kind of want to win.” She still has a long way to go on the dance floor to back that up.
In her foxtrot, Marissa let her big Broadway personality shine, maintaining a sense of elegance while still going for the larger-than-life gestures. That’s the part what bothered Bruno, who felt like he was watching Ethel Merman stomp her way through a routine. Still, the resulting 25 points were fair enough.
The mambo didn’t work any better for Marissa. In fact, ambitious moves like a Kristi-esque spin backfired with the judges. Carrie Ann felt the flaws in the “pepper pot” spin were even worse since “Kristi just nailed it.” That left Marissa firmly in the back of the pack with 50 for the night.
Last week’s leader, Jason Taylor took a beating Monday after an inconsistent showing. His tango blew the judges away with intense footwork and impeccable timing. Well, all of the judges except for cranky Len, who felt into was a bit too “Argentinean.” Bruno reminded Len that the dance itself originated in Argentina, but the panel tiff aside, they called it almost perfect and gave it a 29.
It all went downhill with the samba. Jason displayed plenty of flexibility and hip shaking, but the flamboyant attempt failed to impress, even with the help of Edyta Sliwinska’s huge vertical lift. After knocking Kristi off the top spot last week, Jason barely beat Marissa with 52 points.
Best at his worst
Returning from a rough week that included a last place finish and a ruptured tendon in his left arm, Cristián de la Fuente surprised everyone with his knack for one-armed dancing. His tango, oddly set to Michael Jackson’s “Beat It,” made for one of the best of the season. Somehow Cristián, aided largely by creative choreography from pro partner Cheryl Burke, danced better down a limb.
“You are the man with the golden arm,” Bruno exclaimed before the panel gave him a 28 for the routine. When Cristián came back for the mambo, he only needed to match that score to lead the night. But he did one (point) better.
Toe leads, one-armed lifts and perfect posture should have earned the dance a perfect score. It would have, had it not been point-stingy Len. After Cristián raked in the 29 and a standing O from the audience, he reckoned, “We should have started dancing with one arm way before!”
Which star is destined to exit before the “Dancing” finals? This is the point in the competition where there are just no blatantly bad dancers to cut, so it’s all about the viewer votes. Despite Mario’s higher than usual score, his fans have let him down before. It wouldn’t be a shock to see him in the red light, but with Marissa expecting bottom two-déjà vu and boasting the lowest overall score of the night, the R&B star should be safe.
Ree Hines is a regular contributor to msnbc.com.
Against the odds, last week’s last place dancer tops the leaderboard
COMMENTARY
By Ree Hines
MSNBC contributor
updated 11:46 p.m. ET, Mon., May. 5, 2008
Just like last week, the celebrity hoofers from “Dancing With the Stars” took on both ballroom basics and Latin routines Monday night. To mix things up this time around, the stars had a chance to add a little more excitement and occasional altitude to the usual steps, thanks to judge Len Goodman’s recently enacted lenient lift rule. But the real action didn’t come from the dancers’ newfound freedom to toss their partners into the air.
The biggest moves of the night were on the leaderboard. It wasn’t just that Kristi Yamaguchi landed a second-place repeat, or even the fact that Jason Taylor wasn’t the one to steal her spot. No, this time, the surprise was how an injured Cristián de la Fuente managed to steal the show with one arm tied behind his back.
Getting into the groove
When the evening kicked off Kristi faced her first chance to reclaim her “Dancing” queen status. She said the abrupt end to her six-week streak left her more determined than ever before, and that inspired effort showed in her quickstep. The only unfortunate choice in the dance was the long, leg-obscuring gown Kristi wore, as it minimized the view of her precision footwork. The number closed with Mark Ballas hefting her onto his shoulder in the first and most modest lift of the evening.
Both Len and Bruno Tonioli praised the dance, complimenting the varied tempo and flow, but Carrie Ann Inaba, no longer able to wax annoying about lift infractions, claimed Kristi started the routine out of synch. The other panelists looked at Carrie Ann like she was out of her mind.
The one point knocked off for that hard-to-spot (and likely non-existent) synch issue, left Kristi heading into the next dance with a 29. Unfortunately, the samba wasn’t a worthy follow up. Despite some impressive spins, the awkward, body-shaking number fell flat with the judges and only managed a meager 26 points.
In rehearsals, Mario worked on his big ballroom weakness, stiffness — as in not enough of it. Karina Smirnoff played posture taskmaster until she deemed him, “almost as stiff as rusty old Len.” Way to kiss up to the head judge, Karina.
The two took the floor for a not-so-limber Viennese waltz, and aced it. Showing more control in the waltz than his faulty foxtrot last week, Mario moved with grace and only minimal foot flubs. Len said watching Mario dance was usually like watching Britney Spears get out of a car, “It’s not very elegant. Sometimes you see things you’d rather not,” but he added, “Tonight I thought that was marvelous.”
And the set of nines from the judges backed that up. In an almost repeat, Mario scored just one point less for his jive effort. Though Bruno applauded the rock ’n roll, youthful feel of the dance, Len didn’t care for it. Still, with 53 out of 60 overall, it could have been worse.
Falling behind
Undaunted by her bottom two finish last week, Marissa Jaret Winokur is in it to win it. “When I started out, I just wanted to prove that you didn’t have to be a size 2 to dance,” she said in rehearsals. “Now that I’ve gotten this far, I kind of want to win.” She still has a long way to go on the dance floor to back that up.
In her foxtrot, Marissa let her big Broadway personality shine, maintaining a sense of elegance while still going for the larger-than-life gestures. That’s the part what bothered Bruno, who felt like he was watching Ethel Merman stomp her way through a routine. Still, the resulting 25 points were fair enough.
The mambo didn’t work any better for Marissa. In fact, ambitious moves like a Kristi-esque spin backfired with the judges. Carrie Ann felt the flaws in the “pepper pot” spin were even worse since “Kristi just nailed it.” That left Marissa firmly in the back of the pack with 50 for the night.
Last week’s leader, Jason Taylor took a beating Monday after an inconsistent showing. His tango blew the judges away with intense footwork and impeccable timing. Well, all of the judges except for cranky Len, who felt into was a bit too “Argentinean.” Bruno reminded Len that the dance itself originated in Argentina, but the panel tiff aside, they called it almost perfect and gave it a 29.
It all went downhill with the samba. Jason displayed plenty of flexibility and hip shaking, but the flamboyant attempt failed to impress, even with the help of Edyta Sliwinska’s huge vertical lift. After knocking Kristi off the top spot last week, Jason barely beat Marissa with 52 points.
Best at his worst
Returning from a rough week that included a last place finish and a ruptured tendon in his left arm, Cristián de la Fuente surprised everyone with his knack for one-armed dancing. His tango, oddly set to Michael Jackson’s “Beat It,” made for one of the best of the season. Somehow Cristián, aided largely by creative choreography from pro partner Cheryl Burke, danced better down a limb.
“You are the man with the golden arm,” Bruno exclaimed before the panel gave him a 28 for the routine. When Cristián came back for the mambo, he only needed to match that score to lead the night. But he did one (point) better.
Toe leads, one-armed lifts and perfect posture should have earned the dance a perfect score. It would have, had it not been point-stingy Len. After Cristián raked in the 29 and a standing O from the audience, he reckoned, “We should have started dancing with one arm way before!”
Which star is destined to exit before the “Dancing” finals? This is the point in the competition where there are just no blatantly bad dancers to cut, so it’s all about the viewer votes. Despite Mario’s higher than usual score, his fans have let him down before. It wouldn’t be a shock to see him in the red light, but with Marissa expecting bottom two-déjà vu and boasting the lowest overall score of the night, the R&B star should be safe.
Ree Hines is a regular contributor to msnbc.com.
Who's More Red, White and Blue-Collar?
Who's More Red, White and Blue-Collar?
With a Boilermaker Here and a Bowling Ball There, Obama and Clinton Try to Win Over Middle America
By Eli Saslow
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 6, 2008; A01
LAFAYETTE, Ind. -- If he weren't so busy waiting tables at O'Charley's or scanning Wal-Mart for discount meat to feed his four kids, Scott Winschief thinks he might make a pretty good candidate for president of the United States. For the past six months, he has watched on television in his double-wide mobile home as Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have traveled around the country and imitated his lifestyle. Badly.
They posed for photos in the same kind of factory where Winschief, 44, pinched a nerve in his back hauling 1,800-pound coils of wire in 140-degree heat. They visited bars and drained pints of the domestic beer that fills Winschief's fridge. They toured barns occupied by animals like the ones he fed at 4 a.m. every day so he could pay for a few years of college. They reminisced about shooting guns like the ones displayed inside almost every house in his rural neighborhood.
The presidential race has turned into a riveting competition for ordinariness, as both campaigns have concluded that whoever does a better job of winning over voters like Winschief -- an average blue-collar man in an average American town of 60,000 -- is more likely to triumph in Tuesday's primaries in Indiana and North Carolina.
Identifying with the common man has been a requisite in presidential elections for almost two centuries. But the stakes are especially high in a race largely defined by an economic crisis, and campaign experts say the candidates have gone especially far in their appeals.
In the past six weeks, Clinton hammered down a shot of Crown Royal whiskey -- not necessarily the first choice of the workingman -- and chased it with a beer. Obama visited a Pennsylvania sports bar and sampled a Yuengling after making sure it wasn't "some designer beer." Clinton told stories about learning to shoot behind the cottage her grandfather built. Obama went bowling.
Whether these voyeurs of blue-collar existence yield results depends on how people like Winschief perceive them. Are these genuine attempts at connection or overly calculated tactics to win voters? Are they telling moments that reveal a candidate's humanity or patronizing charades that reveal a candidate's guile?
Last Tuesday night, Winschief cradled his custom-made bowling ball at Arrowhead Bowl in downtown Lafayette. It was league night, a staple of his schedule for the past decade, and he shuffled a deck of Hooters playing cards on the table in front of him and gulped Miller Lite from a plastic cup. One of Winschief's teammates mentioned Obama's recent misadventures at a bowling alley, where he rolled a succession of gutter balls (with the help of a couple of young children who rolled a couple of frames) en route to a score of 37. The friend wondered whether there was an adult in Lafayette who couldn't beat Obama's abysmal total.
Winschief, an undecided Democrat, pondered this for a second as he glanced up at his own score -- 164 with three of 10 frames left to bowl.
"I love him for trying, but that's awful," he said. "A 37? It kind of makes you wonder why he's even bowling in the first place."
Presidential candidates have strived relentlessly downward in social class ever since the 1840s, when William Henry Harrison created what historians now call the "common-man myth." While most of his peers campaigned from their estates, Harrison traveled the country and spoke under a banner depicting a log cabin and a bottle of hard cider. He won the presidency by a landslide, and his campaign model became the new standard.
With few exemptions since, American voters have picked presidents who mimic the public's most ordinary habits -- men who regularly mention drinking, or NASCAR, or old-fashioned farm work. Ronald Reagan liked to be photographed chopping wood. George H.W. Bush spoke longingly about pork rinds. Bill Clinton stopped at McDonald's while on the campaign trial, even when it required a side trip. And George W. Bush is a champion brush-clearer.
Disruption to this role-playing occurs only when a politician makes a blunder so glaring that it reveals him to be a jester in costume. Gerald Ford bit into a tamale without husking it while campaigning on the Mexican border in 1976, and he extolled its deliciousness before realizing he had consumed the wrapper. John F. Kerry ordered a cheesesteak at Pat's in Philadelphia and asked for Swiss cheese, even though Pat's had specialized in subs with Cheez Whiz for 70 years.
In 1994, George W. Bush arranged for several media outlets to follow him on the first day of dove-hunting season. He fired his gun, killed a bird and looked like a real woodsman until officials identified his kill as a Texas songbird, a protected species easily distinguished from doves by experienced hunters. Bush paid a $130 fine.
"If you can look like the common man and make your opponent appear out of touch, you've pretty much won the election," said Richard Shenkman, a George Mason professor who has written several books about presidential campaigning. "The American people, given the choice between reality and the myth, almost always pick the myth. . . . We tell ourselves their average day is just like ours."
Last Tuesday morning, Winschief woke up at his home in the outskirts of Lafayette and took a shower using water from the well he had helped drill a decade earlier. His wife, a nurse who works the overnight shift at a hospital for an extra $2 per hour, wouldn't return home for 30 minutes. He hadn't seen her since Saturday.
A few minutes after she returned, Winschief would leave for his shift as a waiter at O'Charley's, a family restaurant in the parking lot of the Tippecanoe Mall. The other servers are mostly college women from nearby Purdue University, and Winschief sometimes feels awkward for being "as old as everybody's dad." But this job is better than working as the overnight manager at IHOP, where he considered $1 tips generous. It's also better than bending over to bake enamel onto wires for 70 hours each week at a Lafayette factory.
"All things considered," he said, "this is probably the best job I've ever had."
Except for one major drawback: The drive to O'Charley's is 22 miles, requiring a daily total of four gallons of gas, or $15, in Winschief's old truck. Already "in debt up to my eyeballs" after buying six acres of land in New Richmond for $15,000, he never considered moving closer to Lafayette, where property costs five times as much. Plus, he grew up on an Indiana farm and he wants his kids -- ages 17, 15 and 13-year-old twins -- to fish in their own pond and drive their four-wheelers in peace.
To save money for gas, Winschief started collecting scrap metal and discarded aluminum cans from the side of the road on the way to work. Just last week, he recycled a three-pound bag of beer cans and earned $21. His kids teased him for being "pathetic" -- until he used the money to put gas in their four-wheelers.
Tuesday's lunch shift at O'Charley's dragged by in a painful lull, and Winschief sat in a booth at 4 p.m. and counted his tips. He had made about $43, a break-even sum after the round-trip drive to work and bowling. A few years ago, he considered giving up bowling to save money before deciding he would rather go broke. He met his first wife and his current wife at bowling alleys, and he spends the week looking forward to his three hours at Arrowhead.
Winschief polished off a few drinks after work, changed into a Miller Lite T-shirt and drove to the bowling alley to meet his four teammates. If they out-bowled the team from Dilley Crane Service tonight, his team would win the league title and earn back $18 in fees. "High stakes," Winschief said. "I'm not sure if this is fun or making me nervous."
As they took turns bowling, the five men talked about politics. Cliff Albea, a dissatisfied former Republican who stamps logos on cigarette packs for a grocery distributor, thought he might vote for Clinton because he liked her conviction about high gas prices. John Gilmore, a recently retired mechanic, favored Obama because "I can't really bring myself to vote for a woman." Randy Garrett, a Republican who disposes waste for a medical company, felt lucky that Sen. John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, could lie low while "the Democrats make fools of themselves."
Winschief decided he would probably vote for Obama, despite his unfortunate 37. "He might not be a natural bowler," Winschief said, "but at least the guy isn't afraid to see what we like and get to know us."
On a television mounted to the wall behind Winschief, the local news rolled clips from the presidential race. Clinton chatted with factory workers in Indiana. Obama sweated through his T-shirt during a pickup basketball game.
The two candidates spoke into cameras about high gas prices, and about how everybody is feeling squeezed right now. Then they were whisked off in motorcades, headed back to their private jets. They looked exhausted, like they couldn't wait for a break from Winschief's life.
With a Boilermaker Here and a Bowling Ball There, Obama and Clinton Try to Win Over Middle America
By Eli Saslow
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 6, 2008; A01
LAFAYETTE, Ind. -- If he weren't so busy waiting tables at O'Charley's or scanning Wal-Mart for discount meat to feed his four kids, Scott Winschief thinks he might make a pretty good candidate for president of the United States. For the past six months, he has watched on television in his double-wide mobile home as Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have traveled around the country and imitated his lifestyle. Badly.
They posed for photos in the same kind of factory where Winschief, 44, pinched a nerve in his back hauling 1,800-pound coils of wire in 140-degree heat. They visited bars and drained pints of the domestic beer that fills Winschief's fridge. They toured barns occupied by animals like the ones he fed at 4 a.m. every day so he could pay for a few years of college. They reminisced about shooting guns like the ones displayed inside almost every house in his rural neighborhood.
The presidential race has turned into a riveting competition for ordinariness, as both campaigns have concluded that whoever does a better job of winning over voters like Winschief -- an average blue-collar man in an average American town of 60,000 -- is more likely to triumph in Tuesday's primaries in Indiana and North Carolina.
Identifying with the common man has been a requisite in presidential elections for almost two centuries. But the stakes are especially high in a race largely defined by an economic crisis, and campaign experts say the candidates have gone especially far in their appeals.
In the past six weeks, Clinton hammered down a shot of Crown Royal whiskey -- not necessarily the first choice of the workingman -- and chased it with a beer. Obama visited a Pennsylvania sports bar and sampled a Yuengling after making sure it wasn't "some designer beer." Clinton told stories about learning to shoot behind the cottage her grandfather built. Obama went bowling.
Whether these voyeurs of blue-collar existence yield results depends on how people like Winschief perceive them. Are these genuine attempts at connection or overly calculated tactics to win voters? Are they telling moments that reveal a candidate's humanity or patronizing charades that reveal a candidate's guile?
Last Tuesday night, Winschief cradled his custom-made bowling ball at Arrowhead Bowl in downtown Lafayette. It was league night, a staple of his schedule for the past decade, and he shuffled a deck of Hooters playing cards on the table in front of him and gulped Miller Lite from a plastic cup. One of Winschief's teammates mentioned Obama's recent misadventures at a bowling alley, where he rolled a succession of gutter balls (with the help of a couple of young children who rolled a couple of frames) en route to a score of 37. The friend wondered whether there was an adult in Lafayette who couldn't beat Obama's abysmal total.
Winschief, an undecided Democrat, pondered this for a second as he glanced up at his own score -- 164 with three of 10 frames left to bowl.
"I love him for trying, but that's awful," he said. "A 37? It kind of makes you wonder why he's even bowling in the first place."
Presidential candidates have strived relentlessly downward in social class ever since the 1840s, when William Henry Harrison created what historians now call the "common-man myth." While most of his peers campaigned from their estates, Harrison traveled the country and spoke under a banner depicting a log cabin and a bottle of hard cider. He won the presidency by a landslide, and his campaign model became the new standard.
With few exemptions since, American voters have picked presidents who mimic the public's most ordinary habits -- men who regularly mention drinking, or NASCAR, or old-fashioned farm work. Ronald Reagan liked to be photographed chopping wood. George H.W. Bush spoke longingly about pork rinds. Bill Clinton stopped at McDonald's while on the campaign trial, even when it required a side trip. And George W. Bush is a champion brush-clearer.
Disruption to this role-playing occurs only when a politician makes a blunder so glaring that it reveals him to be a jester in costume. Gerald Ford bit into a tamale without husking it while campaigning on the Mexican border in 1976, and he extolled its deliciousness before realizing he had consumed the wrapper. John F. Kerry ordered a cheesesteak at Pat's in Philadelphia and asked for Swiss cheese, even though Pat's had specialized in subs with Cheez Whiz for 70 years.
In 1994, George W. Bush arranged for several media outlets to follow him on the first day of dove-hunting season. He fired his gun, killed a bird and looked like a real woodsman until officials identified his kill as a Texas songbird, a protected species easily distinguished from doves by experienced hunters. Bush paid a $130 fine.
"If you can look like the common man and make your opponent appear out of touch, you've pretty much won the election," said Richard Shenkman, a George Mason professor who has written several books about presidential campaigning. "The American people, given the choice between reality and the myth, almost always pick the myth. . . . We tell ourselves their average day is just like ours."
Last Tuesday morning, Winschief woke up at his home in the outskirts of Lafayette and took a shower using water from the well he had helped drill a decade earlier. His wife, a nurse who works the overnight shift at a hospital for an extra $2 per hour, wouldn't return home for 30 minutes. He hadn't seen her since Saturday.
A few minutes after she returned, Winschief would leave for his shift as a waiter at O'Charley's, a family restaurant in the parking lot of the Tippecanoe Mall. The other servers are mostly college women from nearby Purdue University, and Winschief sometimes feels awkward for being "as old as everybody's dad." But this job is better than working as the overnight manager at IHOP, where he considered $1 tips generous. It's also better than bending over to bake enamel onto wires for 70 hours each week at a Lafayette factory.
"All things considered," he said, "this is probably the best job I've ever had."
Except for one major drawback: The drive to O'Charley's is 22 miles, requiring a daily total of four gallons of gas, or $15, in Winschief's old truck. Already "in debt up to my eyeballs" after buying six acres of land in New Richmond for $15,000, he never considered moving closer to Lafayette, where property costs five times as much. Plus, he grew up on an Indiana farm and he wants his kids -- ages 17, 15 and 13-year-old twins -- to fish in their own pond and drive their four-wheelers in peace.
To save money for gas, Winschief started collecting scrap metal and discarded aluminum cans from the side of the road on the way to work. Just last week, he recycled a three-pound bag of beer cans and earned $21. His kids teased him for being "pathetic" -- until he used the money to put gas in their four-wheelers.
Tuesday's lunch shift at O'Charley's dragged by in a painful lull, and Winschief sat in a booth at 4 p.m. and counted his tips. He had made about $43, a break-even sum after the round-trip drive to work and bowling. A few years ago, he considered giving up bowling to save money before deciding he would rather go broke. He met his first wife and his current wife at bowling alleys, and he spends the week looking forward to his three hours at Arrowhead.
Winschief polished off a few drinks after work, changed into a Miller Lite T-shirt and drove to the bowling alley to meet his four teammates. If they out-bowled the team from Dilley Crane Service tonight, his team would win the league title and earn back $18 in fees. "High stakes," Winschief said. "I'm not sure if this is fun or making me nervous."
As they took turns bowling, the five men talked about politics. Cliff Albea, a dissatisfied former Republican who stamps logos on cigarette packs for a grocery distributor, thought he might vote for Clinton because he liked her conviction about high gas prices. John Gilmore, a recently retired mechanic, favored Obama because "I can't really bring myself to vote for a woman." Randy Garrett, a Republican who disposes waste for a medical company, felt lucky that Sen. John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, could lie low while "the Democrats make fools of themselves."
Winschief decided he would probably vote for Obama, despite his unfortunate 37. "He might not be a natural bowler," Winschief said, "but at least the guy isn't afraid to see what we like and get to know us."
On a television mounted to the wall behind Winschief, the local news rolled clips from the presidential race. Clinton chatted with factory workers in Indiana. Obama sweated through his T-shirt during a pickup basketball game.
The two candidates spoke into cameras about high gas prices, and about how everybody is feeling squeezed right now. Then they were whisked off in motorcades, headed back to their private jets. They looked exhausted, like they couldn't wait for a break from Winschief's life.
Monday, May 5, 2008
7 Things You Must Do in an Interview
7 Things You Must Do in an Interview
Aileen Pincus, BusinessWeek.com, Yahoo! HotJobs
When you are looking to make the Big Leap -- the one that puts you closer to the power centers of a business or organization -- the interview process will likely be different from what you've experienced before. The more senior the person or people you're interviewing with, the more definite their ideas are likely to be about what they're looking for. They know that their own continued success depends on hiring the best people.
So how do you prove your readiness for the big leagues? By thinking like a big-league player. This interview will be different from others, but it will be your best chance to impress the decisionmakers, so there are some key points you want to be certain you get across. Here are tips to help you succeed:
Show You Get the "Big Picture"
Any number of interview candidates may possess specific subject-knowledge valuable to a business. But the candidate who goes beyond mere information and displays an ability to use it well is more likely to get the job. Senior executives and managers generally want people who pay attention to and understand the broader view.
Tip: Demonstrate you recognize patterns and understand their importance; that you know how to use and synthesize information.
Find Out What Keeps the Boss Up at Night
Do your homework so you understand not only the job or promotion for which you are applying, but also the job of the senior executive above it. Do you know to whom this person reports, and what the top issues are for your boss's boss?
Tip: Make that knowledge part of your interview conversation. Show an interest not only in the specifics of the job, but in the product and markets for that company. Ask broad questions: "What do you think the potential growth in the Indian market is?"
Look for Answers
Senior managers are looking for candidates who are creative thinkers focused on finding solutions. It is less important that you show you know the details of the problems the organization faces than that you're able to demonstrate readiness to look for options and find solutions.
Tip: Think about problems in the past you've identified and managed to solve. Show readiness to tackle the tough issues.
Show Some Guts
Chances are whoever you're interviewing with got where he is by showing some moxie, and you should too. Top people need and want folks around them who are not afraid to speak up and will confidently assert their ideas. It is the only way to be part of the process.
Tip: Be ready with an example of a time when you weren't afraid to go out on a limb and your actions helped bring about real change.
Show Your Softer Side, Too
Yes, you should speak up and assert your ideas. But there will be times when the folks at the top will want-- will even need -- for you to go along once a decision has been made, even if you don't agree with it.
Tip: Think about past experiences you can discuss to demonstrate you're comfortable with the challenges of a dynamic environment.
Listen
Just as you want to make it plain in an interview that you are not too timid to speak up, you want to make it clear you are not over-confident or intent on dominating the process. Demonstrate you are able to listen without being too eager to cut off dialog.
Tip: Ask questions that reflect the concerns of the questioner in a constructive way. For instance, if you are asked what you would do in a certain situation, resist the temptation to answer before you've asked some questions of your own.
Keep It Positive
If there's one thing senior managers have a universal distaste for, it's whining. Remember, every hiring manager wants to hire a team player who will bring positive energy and real initiative to the job. Be ready with examples of positive suggestions about problems or issues that you took initiative on in order to demonstrate your people skills.
Tip: Steer clear of any criticism of prior managers, even if invited to offer it.
Aileen Pincus, BusinessWeek.com, Yahoo! HotJobs
When you are looking to make the Big Leap -- the one that puts you closer to the power centers of a business or organization -- the interview process will likely be different from what you've experienced before. The more senior the person or people you're interviewing with, the more definite their ideas are likely to be about what they're looking for. They know that their own continued success depends on hiring the best people.
So how do you prove your readiness for the big leagues? By thinking like a big-league player. This interview will be different from others, but it will be your best chance to impress the decisionmakers, so there are some key points you want to be certain you get across. Here are tips to help you succeed:
Show You Get the "Big Picture"
Any number of interview candidates may possess specific subject-knowledge valuable to a business. But the candidate who goes beyond mere information and displays an ability to use it well is more likely to get the job. Senior executives and managers generally want people who pay attention to and understand the broader view.
Tip: Demonstrate you recognize patterns and understand their importance; that you know how to use and synthesize information.
Find Out What Keeps the Boss Up at Night
Do your homework so you understand not only the job or promotion for which you are applying, but also the job of the senior executive above it. Do you know to whom this person reports, and what the top issues are for your boss's boss?
Tip: Make that knowledge part of your interview conversation. Show an interest not only in the specifics of the job, but in the product and markets for that company. Ask broad questions: "What do you think the potential growth in the Indian market is?"
Look for Answers
Senior managers are looking for candidates who are creative thinkers focused on finding solutions. It is less important that you show you know the details of the problems the organization faces than that you're able to demonstrate readiness to look for options and find solutions.
Tip: Think about problems in the past you've identified and managed to solve. Show readiness to tackle the tough issues.
Show Some Guts
Chances are whoever you're interviewing with got where he is by showing some moxie, and you should too. Top people need and want folks around them who are not afraid to speak up and will confidently assert their ideas. It is the only way to be part of the process.
Tip: Be ready with an example of a time when you weren't afraid to go out on a limb and your actions helped bring about real change.
Show Your Softer Side, Too
Yes, you should speak up and assert your ideas. But there will be times when the folks at the top will want-- will even need -- for you to go along once a decision has been made, even if you don't agree with it.
Tip: Think about past experiences you can discuss to demonstrate you're comfortable with the challenges of a dynamic environment.
Listen
Just as you want to make it plain in an interview that you are not too timid to speak up, you want to make it clear you are not over-confident or intent on dominating the process. Demonstrate you are able to listen without being too eager to cut off dialog.
Tip: Ask questions that reflect the concerns of the questioner in a constructive way. For instance, if you are asked what you would do in a certain situation, resist the temptation to answer before you've asked some questions of your own.
Keep It Positive
If there's one thing senior managers have a universal distaste for, it's whining. Remember, every hiring manager wants to hire a team player who will bring positive energy and real initiative to the job. Be ready with examples of positive suggestions about problems or issues that you took initiative on in order to demonstrate your people skills.
Tip: Steer clear of any criticism of prior managers, even if invited to offer it.
Will Indiana be a 'game-change'"?
Will Indiana be a 'game-change'"?
By Jamie Coomarasamy
BBC News, Indiana
Campaigning in Indiana brings its complications - not least of which is keeping track of the time.
For historical reasons, the Hoosier State contains two time zones.
Parts of the north-west and south-west go by central - or "slow time", as the locals call it, while the rest of the state goes by eastern, or "fast time".
It was something that one of Hillary Clinton's secret service agents seemed unaware of, when we spoke outside one of her events in Indianapolis.
The candidate herself, however, was as focused and on-message as ever.
And the message she has been giving across Indiana has been an unashamedly populist one.
'Misguided strategy'
The New York senator has been laying out her plan to bring down gasoline prices; a mixture of new windfall taxes on big oil companies and no gas taxes - over summer, at least for consumers and business owners.
Barack Obama calls it a misguided, short-termist electoral strategy.
He has seized on the fact that the idea has the support of the Republican nominee, John McCain, and has labelled it a "Clinton-McCain plan".
So whose vision will convince the voters? And how important will a victory be in Indiana - a state which last held a significant primary 40 years ago?
Should Mr Obama win in Indiana... he will have stemmed the tide of recent defeats
The first is hard to judge.
Opinion polls place the two rivals neck-and-neck, but - as you travel around the state - you are repeatedly told how hard it is to give a single message to Indiana's voters or, indeed, to get a single message from them.
Not only are there two zones, but different regions of the state are influenced by the big cities in the neighbouring states.
Cincinnati, Ohio in the north east, Louisville, Kentucky in the south-west and in the north-west, Chicago, Illinois.
It is a Mid-Western mosaic.
Shock victory?
That Chicago link could help Barack Obama.
The Illinois senator's ties to the city may act as a counterweight to the advantage which Hillary Clinton might be expected to enjoy with the region's blue-collar workers, who are still smarting from the loss of more than 100,000 manufacturing jobs in the state since 2000.
They have been the kind of voter she has courted to great effect in states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania.
And the significance of Indiana?
Hillary Clinton has been speaking about next Tuesday's two primaries - Indiana and North Carolina - as "game changers" and, in a sense, they could be.
If she wins in Indiana and pulls off a shock victory in North Carolina, where she trails in most polls, the sheen will have been removed from the Obama campaign.
A double win would confirm that the Clinton victories in Pennsylvania and Ohio did indeed mark a change of momentum.
A double loss for Senator Obama, on the other hand, at the end of a period marked by the re-emergence of his controversial former pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright, would re-ignite the debate over his electability.
Should he win in Indiana, however, he will have stemmed the tide of those recent defeats.
His front runner status, which he has earned by winning more states, votes and delegates than his rival, would regain its legitimacy.
To see how far the game has really changed, though, you will have to look to the super-delegates - those party officials who can support whichever candidate they choose at the National Convention in August and whose votes are likely to decide the contest.
Hillary Clinton's only plausible path to victory, at this point, involves convincing them that she is the best-placed candidate to defeat John McCain in November.
If those super-delegates, yet to reveal their hand, desert either candidate in large numbers, the game will not just be changed.
It will be over.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7381471.stm
By Jamie Coomarasamy
BBC News, Indiana
Campaigning in Indiana brings its complications - not least of which is keeping track of the time.
For historical reasons, the Hoosier State contains two time zones.
Parts of the north-west and south-west go by central - or "slow time", as the locals call it, while the rest of the state goes by eastern, or "fast time".
It was something that one of Hillary Clinton's secret service agents seemed unaware of, when we spoke outside one of her events in Indianapolis.
The candidate herself, however, was as focused and on-message as ever.
And the message she has been giving across Indiana has been an unashamedly populist one.
'Misguided strategy'
The New York senator has been laying out her plan to bring down gasoline prices; a mixture of new windfall taxes on big oil companies and no gas taxes - over summer, at least for consumers and business owners.
Barack Obama calls it a misguided, short-termist electoral strategy.
He has seized on the fact that the idea has the support of the Republican nominee, John McCain, and has labelled it a "Clinton-McCain plan".
So whose vision will convince the voters? And how important will a victory be in Indiana - a state which last held a significant primary 40 years ago?
Should Mr Obama win in Indiana... he will have stemmed the tide of recent defeats
The first is hard to judge.
Opinion polls place the two rivals neck-and-neck, but - as you travel around the state - you are repeatedly told how hard it is to give a single message to Indiana's voters or, indeed, to get a single message from them.
Not only are there two zones, but different regions of the state are influenced by the big cities in the neighbouring states.
Cincinnati, Ohio in the north east, Louisville, Kentucky in the south-west and in the north-west, Chicago, Illinois.
It is a Mid-Western mosaic.
Shock victory?
That Chicago link could help Barack Obama.
The Illinois senator's ties to the city may act as a counterweight to the advantage which Hillary Clinton might be expected to enjoy with the region's blue-collar workers, who are still smarting from the loss of more than 100,000 manufacturing jobs in the state since 2000.
They have been the kind of voter she has courted to great effect in states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania.
And the significance of Indiana?
Hillary Clinton has been speaking about next Tuesday's two primaries - Indiana and North Carolina - as "game changers" and, in a sense, they could be.
If she wins in Indiana and pulls off a shock victory in North Carolina, where she trails in most polls, the sheen will have been removed from the Obama campaign.
A double win would confirm that the Clinton victories in Pennsylvania and Ohio did indeed mark a change of momentum.
A double loss for Senator Obama, on the other hand, at the end of a period marked by the re-emergence of his controversial former pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright, would re-ignite the debate over his electability.
Should he win in Indiana, however, he will have stemmed the tide of those recent defeats.
His front runner status, which he has earned by winning more states, votes and delegates than his rival, would regain its legitimacy.
To see how far the game has really changed, though, you will have to look to the super-delegates - those party officials who can support whichever candidate they choose at the National Convention in August and whose votes are likely to decide the contest.
Hillary Clinton's only plausible path to victory, at this point, involves convincing them that she is the best-placed candidate to defeat John McCain in November.
If those super-delegates, yet to reveal their hand, desert either candidate in large numbers, the game will not just be changed.
It will be over.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7381471.stm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)