Here's a belated Dean story of the day from last Thursday--worth the wait if you haven't read it. From The Nation, Katha Pollitt: Selling Dean Short.

She begins with the question bugging the crap out of me:

What did Howard Dean do to make the media so snarky about his primary run? Now that he has emerged as a major fundraiser with flocks of enthusiastic supporters, a vigorous campaign staff, a bag full of Internet tricks and respectable--and rising--poll numbers, the pundits and reporters have to go through the motions of taking him seriously . . .  But aside from some curiously cheerful coverage in the Wall Street Journal, they obviously don't like him.

And she makes a nice case against the media idiocies attempting to explain his appeal, offers up some worthier explanations:

I've talked to quite a few Dean supporters, including mainstream Democrats, lapsed voters, flaming leftists, Naderites, gay activists, civil libertarians, anti-death penalty lawyers, pro-single payer health professionals and even a surprising number of Nation staffers. I have yet to find one who mistakes Dean for Eugene Debs, or even for Paul Wellstone, whose line about belonging to the "democratic wing of the Democratic Party" Dean likes to borrow. They've gone for Dean because, alone among the major Democratic contenders, he has taken Bush on in an aggressive and forthright way, because he's calling the craven Democratic Party to account and because they think he can win. "I have no illusions that Dean is a true progressive," said one young graduate student who describes himself as a leftist, "but I don't care. I just want to beat Bush. If Dean has the momentum, I say, go for it." That word "momentum" comes up a lot. . .

Right now, Dean is the only viable candidate who speaks to the anger, fear and loathing a large number of ordinary citizens feel about the direction Bush has taken the country, while the mainstream media blandly kowtow and the Democratic Party twiddles its thumbs. He has gone out and actually asked for the help of these citizens, rather than taking them for granted. That is why 70,000 people have sent him money, and why 84,000 have shown up to work for him, and why tens of thousands of volunteers wrote personal letters to Iowa and New Hampshire . . .

RadioUserland, which powers this site, continues having server problems, but the big slowdown has been with the comments server.

Therefore, I have broken down and temporarily pulled the comments from this site, which should dramatically increase response time.

I hate to do that, as I love the comments, but I will put them back as soon as possible (hopefully this week), and have been assured your old comments will remain.

In the meantime, please email me with pressing comments or links and I'll try to post them. And do email to let me know if the response time has improved.

Another poll, another disturbing round in the gay-marriage backlash.

From AP:

 WASHINGTON - More than half of Americans favor a law barring gay marriage and specifying wedlock be between a man and a woman, an Associated Press poll found.

The survey also found presidential candidates could face a backlash if they support gay marriage or civil unions, which provide gay couples the legal rights and benefits of marriage.

And for the moment, the hope that civil unions are more palatable is a pipe dream:

About four in 10 - 41 percent - support allowing civil unions, roughly the same level found in an AP poll three years ago. But 53 percent now say they oppose civil unions, up from 46 percent in the earlier survey.

The increase came largely from people who previously were undecided, the polls suggested.

Personally, I think the differing views between "marriage" and "civil unions" will re-emerge once the shock wears off, but people really are in shock, and they're not differentiating, they're just shaking their heads shouting no no no! For once one of those ultra-right gadflies has her finger right on the pulse when she says, "The public clearly draws the line at gay marriage. . . There's often a bit of rethinking" on an issue "after a big development like a Supreme Court decision."

That's for sure. I know a lot of you out there have felt the surge of excitement from the big gay summer. You're tired of waiting and you're all charged up to charge recklessly into the fight. But we've gotten ahead of ourselves. Way ahead. The public is not even close to ready for this.

I have found myself in the unlikely role of nervous nelly all summer, but I'm feeling more and more vindicated about playing (her?). I understand why no one in the homo camp has wanted to hear that kind of talk; what little I've heard of it has been entirely drowned out by the elation. Our elation was highly premature, and I hope that's becoming evident.

It's time to pull our oars out of the water and rethink our strategy. Fast. We need to back off our demands--to the extent we can--and match that move with an aggressive campaign to win the public's hearts which does not FEEL aggressive to them. Certainly not in their face. We're way past that stage.

Unfortunately, and ironically, the MA supreme court may deck us with a powerful blow to the head designed to help us. If they do legalize gay marriage in MA, we need to resist the urge to run dancing topless in the streets, and use the opportunity to sound reassuring. I don't know how the hell we're going to reassure the straight people, but we sure as hell have to try.

Otherwise we may soon be looking down the barrell of a constitutional amendment. Everyone on the left poo-poos the idea of that getting enacted, but it's not 2/3 and 3/4 of the public needing to vote for it, it's those fractions of weasely politicians reading this public mood:

The poll found 54 percent favor a constitutional amendment that gay marriage only be between a man and a woman, while 42 percent oppose it.

And with or without the amendment, we desperately need gay-friendly forces in the legislatures and white house, in or out of our closet. If we're not careful, we'll bring our Dem supporters down with us:

Close to half those surveyed said they would be less likely to support a presidential candidate who backs civil unions (44 percent) or gay marriage (49 percent), while only around 10 percent said they would be more likely.

Another obscenely overdue movie review.

I loved everything about this fillum--the laughs, the insights, the ridiculous situations, the music, the cameo, John Cusak's smile--except the third act; it didn't really have one. It was fine as a second second act, but it never did go anywhere completely satisifying for me. It was missing the last chapter that would have made me love it unconditionally and cherish it every moment forever, but I loved every minute I was watching it, more than any movie I have in a long time. (And I saw the chopped up version on Comedy Central. Maybe there was a third act and they just chopped it out.)

Makes me want to read Nick Hornby. I bet it had a third act (denouement?)

(Actually, a few quibbles, just because I can't leave a scab alone. One the rainstorm made my eyes roll. But that was the only time. Two: I like Joan Cusak even more than Joan, but it's just way too jarring to see them in the same movie. They really need to cut that out. I can't get past the fact that, She's your sister dude! feeling. I kept expecting them to lurch off into some romantic fling, the way I'm scared sometimes that I'll suddenly veer my car off an embankment before I can stop myself. And it gave me the creeps every time she appeared. This may be more of my problem, but I still want it to stop. Three: How could all those funeral collections could have left out Prince's "Sometimes it snows in April," and Rickie Lee Jones' "Company"?)

One of the rare great TV critics out there, Salon's Heather Havrilesky, recaps the full season of The Amazing Race in a Monday story titled Those Amazing Animals.

Hysterical and insightful as always, the title captures the flavor of it nicely. She starts by contrasting it to all the dating shows, summing up my own feeling about how tiresome they've grown so quickly:

If you wanted to sit through moronic, inane banter punctuated by awkward silences, why wouldn't you just ask out a socially inept halfwit yourself?

Which nicely segues to:

If, instead of watching people pretending to fall in love for the camera, you'd prefer to see established couples fall into a downward spiral of contempt and hysteria -- and who wouldn't? -- then "The Amazing Race" is the show for you. Don't let the silly world-travel challenges fool you. "The Amazing Race" is all about dragging long-term relationships over the red-hot coals of conflict. ...As our intrepid couples endure a steady stream of panic-inducing situations, skillfully edited to maximize the nail-biting suspense, we can almost see the seams of their relationships ripping before our eyes.

Loved every moment of this piece, I'd like to excerpt it all. I'll skip past--Tian and Jaree 'described as "Models" and, less convincingly, "Friends," -to get straight to the teams we most love to hate and most love to love:

During a "traditional Malaysian good luck blessing" which gay beauties Chip and Reichen report was like "getting married all over again" and even The Clowns thought was "special," open-minded Millie says, "Being a Christian, it was just a little unusual. I mean, what could they be saying? They could be putting a voodoo chant on us!" This from the woman who put a voodoo chant on Chuck at the racetrack, shrieking at him to hurry the hell up while he was clearly having a panic attack. "I feel tight! Hot and tight!" he mumbled. "It's not good timing, I know!" After 12 years of virginity, your timing is apt to be awful. But was Chuck experiencing claustrophobia, or some kind of a waking wet dream?

As if to make up for the cutthroat tactics, smeared eyeliner and matching outfits of Team Guido during the first season, the show's producers chose to cast hopeless romantics Chip and Reichen, thereby giving gay reality adventurers a far prettier, friendlier face. Aside from The Clowns, Reichen is easily the most likable contestant on the show this season: he's smart, easy on the eyes, and calmer than a cucumber in almost every situation, whether he's pulling a piece of a still-wriggling Octopus tentacle off his teeth or navigating an aquarium filled with great white sharks. And, on top of his grace, nice manners and striking good looks, he rarely seems to make mistakes. It's no wonder the only battle worth watching here involves Chip's relationship to himself. He berates himself constantly for not trusting Reichen's instincts or not following Reichen's lead. Most of the time, it seems like he's just mad at himself for not being Reichen -- and can you blame him? It almost makes you glad that you're not dating an even-tempered Adonis. But not quite.

Nice insights about Chip. I've been thinking/saying things sort of along those lines, but never put my finger quite on it. Poor guy. (I don't agree about Reichen being the most likeable character, though. He's a hottie, a sweetheart, and a great competitor, but lacks a bit of soul. I've always been fonder of Chip, and now I'm crazy about Jon. I think.)

Go read the rest. (If you don't subscribe choose the option to watch an ad.)