Or possibly the other way around.

Sofia Coppola is on Charlie Rose, and just watching the trailer to Lost in Translation again has me dying to meet Scarlett Johansson or possibly impregnate her. Just amazing.

And now Sofia is talking about why she cast different people and she also first saw Scarlett in Manny and Lo, when she (Scarlett) was about 12, fell in love with her the same time I did. Have you rented that film yet? I told you to a week ago, didn't I? Please report back in the comments.

Lost in Translation arrives here tomorrow. I better find a chance to see it this weekend.

(Sorry about the interuption to Survivor. Just back from the gym, watching Charlie Rose while I made dinner. More on Survivor in a few minutes.)

And now for the least interesting aspect of the show: the challenge. But first:

Biggest clue the Morgans are out of their minds? They elected that horrible Andrew their leader.

And boy was that fathead eating it up--even as Nicole and anyone who might have sampled the show on TV knew how stupid he was for taking the slot. And you can bet Osten will never forgive him.

The challenge was fun to watch as a brief diversion. No surprise that the Morgans lost, just that they almost pulled it out. Good job figuring out to make up time on the hard sand near the sea.

I highly approve of the nudity, even if it was a blatant grab at exhibitionism. Nothing wrong with a little exhibitionism. Maybe they were just trying to intimidate the Drakes. Now I will finish that gigantic comment. Osten bobbing around in those flimsy boxers, good lord: looked like he had more down there than the entire Drake team combined. And you know the Dynamic Drake Duo have flimsy little egos (and penises?) ready to wilt at the sight of that show of (strength?) Maybe that's why they fell behind.

Now the elimination. This is probably the least-obvious first elimination of any Survivor on record. No obvious candidates. Normally there are at least two. I guess I'll have to go with Lillian. She is such a freak of nature, chances are she has alienated everybody except her little sidekick. And buddying up tight with him just makes matters worse.

If not her, I don't have a clue. No way they'll throw off Osten till they get done using his back. And Andrew has little chance of winning the game, but he's not going anywhere for now. Haven't seen enough of most of the women to really gauge--and that means most of them are safe, because MB never kicks off a contestant without us developing a love or hate relationship with them first. Ryan S is a possibility. He didn't look like he was fitting in so well either.

Can't wait to see who it is, but I gotta run to the gym first. It's 10:43 and I still haven't worked out. No way I can watch the last 20 minutes, blog about it and still get one in. And haven't been there since NY. I'll be back to wrap up before I go to bed, though. I'll make one more prediction after I see the tribe discussions leading up to tribal council, and then one final wrapup at the end.

(And then I'll open a thread to take predictions for next week and the whole season.) God, I love http://blogs.salon.com/0001137/categories/survivor/ .

Rupert seems to have an odd conception of his role, but he's fun to watch.

And all the funner to watch Burton quietly go insane with jealousy at him for catching all the fish. That Burton is just plain adorable, but I don't know about his black heart. (Blackbeard and Blackheart?) He may still be alright, but for God's sake. Could he be more transparent strutting out there with his spear to bag a fish to feed his tribe. A fish? Eight people and he came big as the conquoring hero with one freaking fish? OK.

Hysterical that the big fat slob--which is I'm sure exactly how Burton thinks of him--picked up the spear and put him to shame. The look on Burton's face as he took off was priceless, even if they did just edit it in from a different situation entirely. That boy has one gigantic ego.

And speaking of gigantic . . . OK, I won't.

Those bugs would have been the end of me. Two big weaknesses of this boy: snakes and bugs. A back full of mosquito bites would have driven me out of my mind.

So would a nightful of Jon. The one thing that would get me in the most trouble on Survivor: a faux funnyman, especially the self-proclaimed sort. Blech! I would have gritted my teeth a few hours, then started making fun of him. Viciously. I would have had a mortal enemy by the first morning. I like Sandra already for despising him.

And those Morgan's: could they be any bigger fuckups? I can't believe they saw the rocks falling and built it there anywhere. And no floor? None of them watched a previous Survivor? Ever? And the joke is they searched everywhere for the water, but it was right on their map, right? (Seems that way. Didn't the Drakes find it marked on the map? And hasn't it been on the map every season? They really have never watched. Or never learned. Reminds me of a great angry, bitter Graham Parker song, Mercury Poisoning--(and gotta love that venting through art; Mercury was his record company): ". . . I've got a dinosaur for a representative / he's got a small brain and refuses to learn.")

The scout leader is a trip and a half. Just not in a good way, at least so far. Osten's reaction to her was pretty damn funny.

I can't believe they didn't buy clothes in the village (though I guess they had a lot on their minds). Love the improvising, though. I like to think I would have thought of the former, but would have been helpless on the latter.

Blackbeard. Thought I was going to hate hate hate him, but so far I really kinda like him.

Wow, Burton and Shawn are dicks! Especially Shawn.

It amazes me that Survivor is in what, its sixth season, and some people are determined to rush right in and repeat the most obvious mistakes of the first five. Do these people ever watch the show first?

The dynamic duo just take over, strutting around as the alpha males, assuring a bullseye on both their backs as soon as the early competitions are over and their backs are no longer needed. They were satisfied to screw themselves that way? They decided to think only of themselves and heckle their fellow castaways? Idiots. Assholes. (Early assessments, of course--they could prove different, and I'll say so if they do, but somehow I doubt it.)

(And to top it off, Shawn has already referred to himself as "myself" instead of me. Drives me a little nuts, but I've found it's quite useful as an quick personality indicator: close to 100% of the people who do it are assholes--the really bloodcurdling assholes somehow trying to look smarter by elevating their speech in comically incorrect ways that just make them look retarded. Can't wait to hear the rest of his linguistic gymnastics.)

Watching the body language of those two together is really something. Right now they're riding the power trip so hard, mating with each other as the two big baboons . . .

Too much. First two out of serious competition.

The Morgan's ran off without spending all the money?! Are they out of their minds?

They are looking more rash, impetuous and foolhardy by the moment. I'm going to make an early prediction right now: The Drakes will crush them. Of course that assessment could change again in 15 minutes; but that's my first impression. (Just as Mark Burnett wanted it to be.)

Sandra, wow. I am really impressed by that girl in the village. What a haul. Of course she's in her element both culturally and linguistically, but even so, I'm impressed. And her little puppy dog Jon isn't nearly as horrible as he was on his preview vids. Just a little horrible.

Rupert is looking hotter and hotter by the moment, but kinda stiff so far. Not sure I'm going to like that boy after all. Except looking at him. And speaking of stiff, was that boy wearing any undies? I never ever notice the goods down there (because I'm generally unobservant, or because I was trained as a straightboy always to avert my eyes?) but he had so much bouncing around down there he could have been signaling ships in from sea.

Good job by Osten selling his clothes, though I can't believe they all didn't. Thank you thank you thank you Mark Burnett for finally ending the racist casting. Is this the first black Survivor male ever not cast as some version of the angry black man, the lazy black man or the big dumb black man? It's about time. They still cast the big athlete black, but I don't mind all that ab meat to look at. Amazing body.

And Shawn, who I also disliked a lot from his vids is looking pretty scrumptous as well. Lot of great manmeat this time. And some beautiful women too, if you're into that sort of thing. (Feel free to swoon over the ladies in the comments.)

Two women shown squaring off for a catfight already. That's our Mark B. Still, could be fun to watch.

Produceman Ryan S seems pretty sensible. Or whiny, hard to tell. Sensible so far.

Nice casting after all Mark. Shaping up to be a really great Survivor. Potentially.

(If you're having trouble keeping the names straight, quick, easy guide at the Survivor home site.

Getting a late start because I fell asleep early this evening.

But the opening was fantastic. Nice twist. Loved watching their faces. And every time they have to hurl themselves off the boat it makes my heart ache that I'm not there. The hurling off into the great unknown metaphor is just too much for me.

Always interesting to see who goes for it. Burton first in. The lawyer I already despise from his intro vids and the produce clerk last.

Not sure how I feel about Rupert, the big fat pirate guy stealing all the goods from the Morgans. It is a game of lying and cheating, though, so I don't know what those Morgans were thinking.

Can't believe all those Morgans ran off by themselves. What? The Drakes definitely seem to have it more together so far. Definitely seem to be working together--and not yet getting screwed by Rupert.

Ryan O may have signed his own stupid death warrant, though I'm sure lots of people will do stupid things tonight.

First 15 minutes: one of the best Survivor openings ever. Hope it keeps up the pace. (And definite hotties in Burton and the big advertising guy. And Ryan O isn't bad either. (And some nice looking women, too, if you're into that sort of thing. Feel free to swoon over them in the comments.)) More coming soon.

One of my favorite interviews with Wes Clark was done by Jake Tapper for Salon in March.

It's nearly all foreign policy, but it's extensive and insightful on that. And all still relevant.

Read it here.

I rarely look first to the Times' for presidential campaign coverage, because they tend so sadly toward the myopia of the other beltway boys. The Wash Post has been infinitely better this season, but not today.

The Times piece on Clark's potential impact wasn't great either--and really became a whole lot of nothing in the second half--but slightly better than the weak Post piece. Better because it focused attention on the right place--Howard Dean--and on broader concepts:

From the moment General Clark — or "the general," as members of his staff invariably referred to him today — took the stage, it was clear that his campaign is being designed as an establishment counterweight to Dr. Dean's effort. . . .

But his relatively brief announcement today — just 11 minutes long — contained unmistakable assaults on the more unconventional foundations of the Dean candidacy. From the moment he took the stage, General Clark served notice that he would not let Dr. Dean seize the advantage in drawing new voters into the system, something that has been a critical part of the Dean phenomenon.

General Clark's speech seemed intended to bridge the insurgent aspects of Dr. Dean's candidacy and the concerns of the party regulars who have viewed the prospect of a Dean nomination as a potential debacle for the party.

That's where Clark could threaten Dean. Now here's Clark's problem for the moment:

He echoed, if in notably flatter tones, the anger of the typical Dean speech as he suggested that he alone could challenge the Bush administration with the "tough questions" that he said would lead to Mr. Bush's defeat.

Nice job from (Times writer) Adam Nagourney on the "notably flatter tones." Exactly what I heard. Clark is going to have to do a lot better on that score if he wants to steal the Dean thunder. Resumes don't mean shit, and big-party backers don't mean much more. (Just take a look at early darling Edwards, or Congressman-favorite Gephardt.) All that matters is turning heads of the voters. (See Kerry's limp campaign.)

Clark is only going to be another Dean if he gets the electoral blood flowing. Those flatter notes are going to be a big problem. It was his first campaign speech though, he's got time to get the hang of it. But he better, or it's over. That's just not an optional campaign characteristic.

(Or three or 6, depending where you live.)

I can hardly wait.

If you're still running that old VCR, 1) be aware that it's a 90-minute edition tonight, and 2) for God's sake, get a Tivo. You'll be so much happier. Greatest invention of the 20th century, some say.

Lively discussion of early impressions of the castaways here. If you haven't heard, video footage is available at the official Survivor site in advance this year.

Update: I will definitely post a response to the opening episode tonight. I'll try to have something up every week the night it runs. (I'm mountain time.)

This short section on fundraising proved the most insightful part of the W Post piece from my last post:

Unfortunately, the campaigns will carefully hide that impact, so we'll never know until one of them drops out and perhaps spills the beans.

We will hopefully hear about what Wesley Clark is raising, but expectations have to be high. Beltway boys do understand the micro-mechanics of the process very well, and most of the analysis I've read says General Clark can expect a big burst of "love money" to pour in the first week or two, which is standard for a well-publicized launch. How much he exceeds that and how long he keeps it flowing will be the real tests.

Still waiting for the deft analysis of how Wes Clark's campaign could affect the other nine contenders. The Washington Post took a stab this morning with a piece by Dan Balz, labeled "analysis," and called For General's Rivals, Varying Cause to Worry. Balz has generally produced some of the best coverage this season (though not quite on a par with Salon and Slate), but this effort is pretty weak. Biggest problem is the standard beltway myopia: all trees, no forest.

(And this time, he doesn't get his hand around many trees, either. The attempts seem half-hearted, because the items he addresses don't seem too significant. Maybe that should have persuaded him he was looking in the wrong places. Oh well, nice effort. It's got some things worth citing here, though.)

So I guess I'll just have to plunge in. I'll take the contenders one by one, using a bit of Balz's copy to assist. (And I know some good analyst is going to publish a trenchant analysis soon that will blow this away, so I'll be on the lookout. Please holler if you see anything worthy. I'm just an email or a comment away.)

Overall impact:

The most popular assumption is that he could hurt Dean and Kerry most.

That's for sure. Chiefly because they have the most to lose. Worst he can do to Lieb and Edwards is deliver the final nail.

Howard Dean:

I think this will be the biggest battle. (Potential battle--all of this is moot if Clark fails to develop a following, so everything here is considering what will happen if he surges). Here's the Balz analysis, which I think has some merit, but . . .

"I think he's going to compete in the Dean-Kerry space as a critic of the war and a critic of Bush's foreign policy," said Bill Carrick, an adviser to Gephardt. "He's going to be in there competing with the same universe of voters that Dean has been dominating so far, and Kerry obviously has shown an inclination to compete there."

. . . but that's way too narrowly focused (and a bit off on Kerry as well).

First, the war stuff. I don't see Clark hurting Kerry there, because Kerry has gotten nowhere with that issue. It's all Dean's. But I also think the press wildly misjudged the impact of Iraq on Dean's following. The bozos just couldn't fathom why this Dean guy was electrifying the part of the electorate that was tuned in, so they figured it must be Iraq. Doh! Iraq may well become a big issue, and in that case, Clark and Dean will have to split the anti-Iraq-war contingent, but I think it will play out more in the general election.

The real potential problem for Dean is better summarized as The McCain factor. There's a reason Dean and Clark are #1 & 2 in Meetup participants, a pretty good gauge of grassroots enthusiasm. They're honest, articulate, candid and wise. There's no bullshit to wade through like Kerry or Gephardt (or Bush or Gore or even Bradley or nearly everyone else who has run in recent memory, other than McCain, Perot and John B. Anderson.)

Their core appeal is very similar, so they're going to appeal to a lot of the same people. That's one read of it. The other read, to which I'm more strongly drawn, is that most of the electorate is hungry for that in a candidate, so they both have a wealth to draw from there. Beyond that, people pick a favorite based on so many different criteria, and lots of people dislike Dean for lots of different reasons (with the conception that he can't win in November seeming to lead the pack). So there's a lot of honest/bright/straight-talker appeal out there to go around, though I do bet Clark will siphon off some of it.

(Important Note on Meetups: Dean is way ahead of #2: As of today, the top three are: Dean 113K, Clark 21K, Kucinich 13K. But Clark deserves nearly equal credit for running ahead--well ahead--of every other candidate without even being a candidate. The fact that he developed that big a following on the basis of a rumor about him running--or more accurately put, that a following that big developed itself--is powerful testimony to the power of his draw. Both Dean's and Clark's Meetup numbers are astonishing. Meetup is a truly new development in politics, and really could be The Big Thing that comes out of this election.)

John Kerry:

Kerry has built his brand around his war-hero persona, so a general who dwarfs his military experience has to be a sobering sight. If that brand had been working for Kerry, I'd say the Clark entry could have proved devastating, but I've seen little evidence it has clicked much.

I think the bigger danger to Kerry is getting edged out as The Serious Challenger to Dean. It took them a long time to figure it out, but in the past month, virtually the entire political press has belatedly conceded that Dean is the clear frontrunner. If Dean screws that up, all bets are off. But if Dean continues building or even just holds his lead in the early states, then the press will quickly narrow the conversation to this: "Dean versus (Someone)." If Dean wins both Iowa and New Hampshire--which is still a long, long way from accomplished, but the most likely scenario of the moment--that will be the only story in town.

If Dean continues to lead, the single most important task for all the other campaigns--make that virtually the only goal that matters for the other eight campaigns--will be getting cast as that someone, cast as The Serious Challenger to Dean. It really won't matter what Edwards and Lieberman and all the other also-rans are doing and saying at that point. They will be invisible. The press needs a storyline, and eventually it all comes down to characters, and they need two facing off for a good contest. (Ten facing off in (is it 2 to the tenth?) different directions is a narrative clusterfuck.)

When the networks are running 37 minutes a night a Dean and  The Serious Challenger and 37 seconds on all the other eight combined--and the print press is following suit, in only slightly less exaggerated terms--then the other eight could be flapping their arms like a duck or stirring goosebumps on the arms of the listeners like Winston Churchill and it won't make a bit off difference. No ear, no goosebumps.

And of course the same scenario plays out in several other ways, chiefly money and bandwagon-effect. Once it comes down to a few serious contenders, all the money dries up for the others, and then they're truly dead in the water. And Americans love a winner, so the winning guy always gets a huge boost from all the lemmings--and from some serious realists. The realists out there may love Denis Kucinich or Carol Mosely Braun, but they know damn well neither one is getting elected, so in the closing days, they jump ship for a place their vote can actually make a difference. And most of them are realistic enough to know it's down to The Frontrunner and The Serious Challenger, so they pick one.

All this on The Serious Challenger I choose to present here because up until yesterday, the smart money was mostly on John Kerry to win that crucial slot (with Dick Gephardt making some strides as well). If I had to lay money yesterday, I would have bet Dean would go into the first round as clear frontrunner and Kerry serious challenger, with Gephardt as Third Man Kinda Still In There In Reserve. And if the Stop Dean forces really prove formidable, they might actually run to Kerry as an alternative, and we might actually get to November with an anemic candidate like Kerry to get trounced by Shrub. (Always the irony of the supposed safe bet sending us down in flames.)

That scenario is extremely real, and John Kerry's best shot at the nomination right now. (And who knows, maybe Shrub will shoot himself in the foot and Kerry and limp his way into the white house that way. Stranger things happen in politics all the time.) But if Dean stays hot, that Serious Alternative Who Could Supposedly Beat Bush slot is his only hope. (Unless he finds his voice and actually starts winning people over, of course, but does anyone still believe he has it in him? When is that guy planning to show up?)

If Clark surges--a big if, but highly plausible--he could well squeeze Kerry right out of that coveted Serious Challenger slot. (And Clark looks much more plausible than Kerry as The Guy Who Could Beat Bush as well.) Without it, Kerry is nothing.

Hmmmm. I'm tempted to put Kerry on the top of the list of candidates threatened by Clark. I resist for one reason: Kerry's nomination is pretty unlikely regardless. In the end, Dean and Clark are most likely to win the nod, so each one remains the biggest threat to each other.

Dick Gephardt:

Balz says:

Gephardt may be the least directly affected because his campaign is economically based and aimed at blue-collar and union Democrats.

True enough, but that's more forest-over-trees analysis that the beltway boys are so famous for. Gephardt's only real shot is edging Kerry out for that Serious Challenger slot. And he's the one person with a reasonable chance of doing that, especially if Kerry continues along as limply as he has all year. If Gephardt makes the leap past Kerry but then gets pushed back down one by Clark, he's back into third, which once we're into primary season is nearly out of contention.

Because of his union base, Gephardt is also the one guy with the most conceivable chance of squeezing his way up from third once the primaries are underway. It's unlikely, but plausible. But if he fails to pass Kerry and Clark pushed him down to fourth in the first round, he's relegated to oblivion.

John Edwards and Bob Graham:

Well these guys have pretty much out of the picture already, but here's what Balz says:

[Edwards and Graham] now have another southern-based candidate to deal with.

Yup. And along with Edwards looks and supposed youth-appeal, that's all they had going for them to begin with. And it was doing just about nothing for them. The biggest impact of the Clark entry on them is to push them each back a notch in the vice presidential sweepstakes, the only place they have a reasonable shot at the moment.

Joe Lieberman:

Lieberman, who has promoted himself as the Democratic candidate who can best neutralize Bush's advantages on national security issues because of his pro-defense record, now has a career military officer who can make the same claim.

Just another nail, for Lieb. His one hope did seem to be someone the party might turn to as a Senior Statesman in a last-gasp Stop Dean effort. But he's running in the wrong party. All Lieb ever had was name recognition, and every day the other names get recognized more he drops back another point in the polls.

I travel in a lot of different circles, and boy do I get an earful on why each of the different candidates is the only man fit for the job, or the only man who can beat Bush. But eventually, the conversation usually turns around to what will happen if their candidate falters, and the Dems seem pretty united this year that they'll rally around anyone to defeat Shrub. With one exception. Over and over, I hear the same thing: "I'll support anyone the Dems nominate. I could support any of them. Except Lieberman! Lieberman! Ugh. Lieberman!"

Why doesn't he try running for veep again? I hear Cheney is unhealthy, maybe he could step in if the old boy's heart can't hold up again.

Everybody Else:

Are there other candidates running?

(Apologies on that last comment to some of the best campaigners out there: Sharpton, Mosely-Braun and Kucinich are actually saying some of the most interesting things out there. But this piece is about the potential impact of a Clark surge, and the impact on zero probability is zero.)

I'll never shut up on Chip & Reichen!

Yet another interview with the boys here, at the All About RC site you'll really enjoy if you're into them. This interview covers some different ground than the others, and it sags here and there, but some in-depth stuff on logistics, and other interesting stuf I had not seen.

Especially after watching the Reality of Reality series on Bravo (actually I'm only half done) and being reminded how much editors sometimes manipulate events, it's always refreshing to read about the honest--mostly honest--shows. Chip responding to how they were edited:

I think we were portrayed correctly about 90 percent of the way. I think they did an amazing job and that really is everyone's character in general. There were a couple of times I think we were portrayed a little out of character. They might edit something. I was screaming at the cab driver in Korea saying speak English. That doesn’t mean that I expected him to speak English. I mean I've traveled the whole world and not everybody speaks our language. But at that particular moment we paid double the money to get a cab driver that spoke English; that was what our concierge said. It made me look like an ugly American, which was too bad, but I did say it. And when I was in Australia driving a dune buggy, they showed me as a bad driver because they wanted to pick that I ran over Reichen's foot and that I spun the car out. But they're here to tell a story. I think I was sometimes picked as a little over-aggressive and not smiling and having no personality, but pretty much I was serious the whole time.

Ninety percent isn't bad. And nice to hear his side of the cabbie thing, which he was so roundly trashed for on the web. I figured as much, and I totally buy his explanation.

(And compare 90% to a horror show like Big Brother. I watched the second season, heavily watching the web broadcast, along with a big contingent of Salon Table Talkers who were watching round the clock and posting. What a scam! That show was 50/50 reality and fiction. Just despicable. And the one big problem I have with Reality of Reality so far is that they got duped. They let the BB producers on several times saying how they have to be honest, because they've got a web audience watching their back. Truth is, they just disregard that, writing off all the people who know the truth, and then using the scam to convince people they must be honest. Those people are going straight to hell. So you have to wonder about all these shows. Generally, the classier the project, the more you can trust them. Survivor castoffs have not always, but generally been supportive about how people were portrayed.)

This from Chip really made me sad:

We’ve received a lot of feedback. The gay community is a very tight-knit community especially in the United States. A lot of people have their opinions and I think some people liked us. I think a lot of people liked Reichen because he has a wonderful demeanor and just a kind face. I think it’s a 50/50 split on me being really tenacious and people think that’s awful and other people look at me and think well, if that what helps you win; that aggressive nature.

We’ve also gotten a lot of nice feedback from kids, and that’s what Reichen and I really want. We’re there to really try to be role models for kids. When I was a kid my role model was Joe Montana, and growing up I didn’t have any role models that were gay because I didn’t come out of the closet until I was 24. And all we’re saying is that we’d like to put a role model out there that can help those kids feel comfortable that there are people out there like them, too.

Makes me feel a bit guilty about focusing on Reichen so much--and what a diplomatic way of saying "Reichen got a pass because he was so hot." Chip's really cute, too: with anybody else, he would have been the focus of fawning--which has to put a big strain on Chip's ego and therefore the relationship. It would sure make me feel like crap.

I'm so dissappointed and embarrassed for Chip (embarrased for the public). Fifty percent dissing him? That's ridiculous. He was a great guy. Hopefully I pointed out enough times in all my drooling over Reichen that I liked them both as people as well, but outside of looks, Chip was my favorite (of the pair: Jon was eventually my favorite on the show--and apparently he was theirs as well.)

Leni Riefenstahl croaked? (It's OK to use that word in public on Nazi propogandists.) It's about time.

When did this happen, when I was in NY? I never heard a peep. Thank God for The Daily Show, where I learned about it tonight, and had a good laugh in the process. (Not because she croaked, because they worked it into a very funny Back in Black segment.) All the best information comes from the fake news. Brilliant show all around tonight. Peaked with the lawn-sewage-and-Cher-concert report.

So I googled her, found this brilliant the little obit (now there's a phrase you don't hear too often) in this week's Village Voice. Excerpts (actually, about half of it):

Once upon a time in Berlin, there was a young, blonde, beautiful maiden named Leni, who starred in silent movies and longed to make films herself. Because she was proud and willful and ingenious, she did, eventually being asked to film a giant Nazi rally in 1934 by Adolf Hitler. The whole world knew Hitler was very, very bad, but like Germany herself, Leni enjoyed his attention, and filmed the crowds and hectoring orations with a mythic flare. . . .

When asked [about the propoganda], she'd scoff like an old widow quizzed about wartime one-night stands. Third Reich citizens tried to shrug off the Nazi period, but Leni put her love on film. Everyone saw it. But what did she love? Hitler and fascism, or celluloid, spectacle, muscle, and power sex? She lived a century; now she's gone.

I watched a few of the films in anthro class a couple years ago, and man, was it a big homofest. Really. It was supposed to be all about the German male physical ideal, but it was mostly a bunch of Dolph Lungrens frollicking naked and splashing each other, like the opening of the big orgy scene at the climax of a Falcon video.

I practically got wood watching it, except it was so damn hokey, I was too busy laughing. And it wasn't just me, the straight people snickered the whole way through it, too. (Not pimply freshmen, PhD candidates.) Gay sex comedy? Think she knew it at the time?

On Aug 15, Newsweek published an interview with General Clark titled Will Wesley Clark Run? I was suprised to see Clark emphasize domestic issues so strongly, and wrote up the following post, which I think is worth repeating now, given the sudden media myth that he has had nothing to say on anything happening within our borders. My original post follows (click on the title to read the Newsweek story): 

Will Wesley Clark Run?

The Rocky Mountain News explained blogs to its readers Monday, and highlighted several great local blogs in the story, including some of our favorites, like TalkLeft and WalterInDenver.

This blog was included in the sidebar (the sidebar! the nerve! heeheehee). Here's their take on this site:

Conclusive evidence of Dave Cullen's existence (http://blogs.salon.com/0001137): Denver journalist Dave Cullen (Salon, Slate, The New York Times) has a well-organized site with concise posts covering politics (he likes Howard Dean and Wesley Clark), pop culture (great on reality TV) and more.

That all sounds good to me, but this marks the first time in my life I've been called well-organized, or especially concise.