Odd for this to happen twice in one weekend. For years now, I've been told how much I'd like "High Fidelity"--either the movie or the book--and "A Supposedly Fun Think I'll Never Do Again." Told not just that these were great works, but that I, specifically, would enjoy them. And this from people who knew me, knew my tastes and were pretty good at calling them.

To top it off--for the movie--Stephen Frears is one of my all-time favorite directors, and I've never disliked a film John Cusak has appeared in (that I've seen).

But . . . something. You know how you get a bad impression of a thing and you can't articulate or even remember why, but you just don't want to go near it?

I think Hi Fidelity screamed out shallow or something. Or maybe it's because only true love can break your heart, and I've been in love with certain pop music my whole life, and a really lameass movie that tries to be good about teen angst and music but fails miserably would be infinitely more painful to endure than a bubblegum flick that never intended more than to titillate.

more more more

Click to read the rest of this, including:

"Supposed," on the other hand, had me at page two. ... I could still turn against them. ... Usually when I fall in love in the first five minutes or pages, I remain blissfully awed straight to the ending, ...  I was midway through the second page before I found myself in a swoon. I have underlined 87 passages in those first six pages, Want to hear some of the good ones?:

I have seen a toupee on a thirteen-year-old boy.

They are sort of diingenuous, I beleive, these magazine people.

menstrual-pink sportscoats

the full clothy weight of a subtropical sky.

the shattering, flatulence-of-the-gods sound of a cruise ship's horn.

There is some decent stuff in the piece--though it's far inferior to Time's effort--but Alter is so much slimier than usual, I can't believe they print this weasel. Check out this passage:

The dilemma for Democrats tempted by Dean is whether to go with their hearts or their heads. Their hearts soar at Dean’s bare-knuckle attacks on Bush and patented Rx on social issues. Their heads tell them that the only times Democrats have won in four decades was when they nominated moderate Southerners—Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton—with a natural connection to black and working-class Democrats and independents.

Oh good lord. Talk about a straw man. And unparelled arrogance. "Their" heads tell them that only if their head happens to sit on the shoulders of Jonathan Alter. Or much of the rest of the head-up-their ass beltway crowd. That is one analysis of the current situation, but a very limited one, and I think an incredibly simplistic one which misses the real point of what drives the electorate. The Supreme Ego of Alter has just deemed it the only analysis and divined that every thinking Dem in the country has been thinking it.

It's one thing for the pundits to grossly misread the public nearly every election and yet keep going on TV and into print every cycle bolding getting it wrong again with supreme confidence. But Alter has just taken the collective conventional wisdom of one segment of that hapless pundit class and projected it onto the entire public, projected it right into our very heads.

What an asshole! Jonathan Alter, you have reached a new nadir. You might be right or you might be wrong about Dean, but your arrogance is astounding. And what could be more appalling than extreme arrogance from an extreme simpleton. It's one thing when William F. Buckley is arrogant. I don't often agree with the man, but at least I can acknowledge his brilliance. Alter? Hack.
____

(Much of this post is included way down toward the bottom of my long piece on the twin Time/Newsweek cover stories. But it so appalled me I thought it deserved a post of its own.)

Visit any of the pages of Time's cover story on Howard Dean, and in the left column you'll find a little "Quick Vote" poll asking this question: "Do you think Howard Dean is the clear frontrunner to win the Democratic presidential nomination?"

At the moment (4:30 MDT, Sunday afternoon), the results are pretty staggering. There were 725 votes cast when I took this snapshot.

Too bad these polls are so incredibly unreliable. Could just mean the Dean fans are flocking to this story and  voting yes, yes, yes. I bet many of them are. I'll go check the Dean site in just a minute to see if they're actually encouraging it. I bet "they" are, at least people in the heavily-trafficed comment threads.

But it's a really interesting question, so I wish all those media pollers would ask this one. I would guess that most people who have been following the race would say yes, but maybe not. I've already drunk a sip or two of the koolaide. You could argue that Dean has all the momentum, but that he's still neck and neck with Kerry, so they're co-front-runners. I could buy that, although what was the last bit of excitement you heard coming from the direction of the Kerry camp?

Meanwhile, Newsweek is running this question, with three loaded choices: "Can Howard Dean win the Democratic nomination?"

Results at 6 p.m. MDT (with an astronomically higher rate of 5128 responses):

55%: Yes. The party needs a outsider candidate

29%: I hope so. That would ensure a Bush victory

17%: No way. He's a temporary, media creation

Wow, feels like Bruce Springsteen in October 1975. Suddenly both newsmagazines have slapped Dr. Dean on their covers at the same time.

Each mag has several stories plus added featurettes, with ten different items to click to in all. Each is summarized below, along with a direct link.

Or click on either magazine pic to go to its intro/index on its package. (With Newsweek, it's for the entire issue--you'll have to scroll down to the "National News" section--the first four entries are Dean stories).

SUMMARY:

Newsweek: The Left's Mr. Right?

His willingness to go after Bush on Iraq thrilled long-suffering liberals. And his unexpected success at fund-raising gave him crucial momentum. But is Howard Dean the Democrats’ path back to power—or a recipe for another 49-state defeat?

[The passages here in italics are the mags' subhead-teasers. My comments in brackets.]

[This piece is written by the beltway airhead Jonathan Alter. It begins with that misleading headline--even though the story acknowledges the Lefty label is wrong-- and goes downhill from there. I'd skip right to the far-superior Time stories.]

Newsweek: The Doctor in his life

For a possible future First Lady, Dr. Judith Steinberg has a novel approach to politics. She simply won’t be bothered.

Newsweek: "They'll say anything"

Dean whacks the Bush White House, scolds his Democratic opponents and talks bluntly about deficits, taxes and gays. [This is a Dean interview, presented in Q/A format.]

Newsweek is also planning a live web chat Wednesay with the story's author, Jonathan Alter. Follow this link to submit questions (on a poorly-labelled page that begins with a capsule of the story followed by an Alter bio).

Time: The Dean Factor

He's got money, momentum, excitement. But is that enough to take him to the top?

As usual, Time has put together a pretty comprehensive package, including a long profile piece and a package of four slideshows, which combine photos with analysis:

Time Profile: The Cool Passion of Dr. Dean

The ex-Vermont Governor is a Park Avenue rebel and an unlikely spokesman for the anti-Bush Left.

Time: Slide-Shows Package

This is a really great package, with four separate slideshows. You can click here and find all of them in the "Photos & Graphics" box, or click on any of the links below to go to an individual slideshow. (If you go to the main page here, don't try right-clicking to open them in a new window. It will just send you to a new window with exactly the same screen.  Frustrating. But do a standard (left) click on one of the items, and it will open a separate small window with the first entry in the slide show you requested).

The four slideshows are (using their goofy titles and explanations. My comments in parentheses:

1. 10 Days that shook the race: How the Dean campaign kicked into high gear (A timeline from June 21-30, with a day-by-day record of how the campaign suddenly exploded. They nailed this one: this is when it really happened--although it took them a full additional month to get to the cover story. That's our Time magazine.)

2. The Democrats: What Dean's success means to the top contenders. (Each slide shows a pic of a Dem contender, with a few lines on how Dean threatens him. Here's the entry on Kerry: "Dean's rise has pushed Kerry into the wings and jeopardized the Senator's chances in his must-win state of New Hampshire; expect their fight to get uglier." That one's right on the mark, but Time must really have been dying to set up a dynamic where the Dean rise helps some candidates and hurst others. In theory, that sounds more interesting, than the more simplistic--but intuitively obvious--answer that a big Dean surge pushes everyone back one. I think they tried to hard. The tortured logic that Gephardt and Edwards gain from this is embarrassing.)

3. Howard Who?: A brief family history. (Family photos back through childhood. Very interesting.)

4. Howard Dean vs. George Bush: More alike than they'll admit. (The silliest of the slideshows, though it does illustrate a few interesting parallels. And the big-hair shot of Dean at Yale is priceless. Despite this slide's stated attempt to show how similar the two men are, the sometimes-superficial similarities listed in the text are unconvincing, while the side-by-side college shots unwittingly undermines the effect by screaming out the underlying difference.)

more more more

Click the "more more more" for a lengthy continuation, begun from the top of the post. It includes three main sections--"Summary," "Time--Excerpts and Analyis," and "Newsweek--Excerpts and Analyis,"--so page down to the heading you're looking for when you get there.)