Often Rachel Maddow has thoughtful, insightful interview that go deep into substance, among the most thoughtful and in-depth on TV, although occasionally they're cheery puffery. I found her conversation last night with Pete Buttigieg to be personable but empty, bordering on just giddy generality, coming close to cheerleading. And perhaps most surprising is that it took over most of the show when there was not only actual news, but news that was serious and important.

Someone wrote me on social media that they found it engaging and thought the personal connection between the two was palpable. He say "there will be time for policy chats in future discussions. For now I am glad they met and let us share the experience of that first meeting."

It was very engaging.  And absolutely charming.  No question.  It was also (to me) empty generalities and took up almost the whole show. Personally, I don't care one whit when journalists meet subjects for the first time (something Ms. Maddow made a Big Deal about). And I do care to hear specifics not just the first time, but every time, most particularly when they're running for President of the United States.  It was a very charming interview -- but Trump won by charming his base.  Speaking just personally, I want details. We could have had a couple minutes of charm and the rest finding out about why Pete Buttigieg thinks he should be president.  I am absolutely fine with people enjoying the interview -- it was very pleasant.  My quibble is that Ms. Maddow is a better interviewer than that. 

Today, the United States officially declared Iran's Revolutionary Guard a "Terrorist Organization." Why this is a Big Deal is related to what longtime readers of these pages might remember.

Back in 2017, I wrote about a brilliant article in the New Yorker by Adam Davidson about a bizarre Trump hotel deal in Azerbaijan that made no sense, except for it being about money laundering, and seemingly having connections with... (say it all together now) Iran's Revolutionary Guard.

If you haven't read that New Yorker artlcle by Davidson, it's tremendous -- albeit very long (though you can probably skim through a few parts if the spirit moves you), and can read it here.

For a much shorter summary of Davidson's New Yorker article and earlier reporting on the subject by Kurt Eichenwald, here's a story today from RawStory about the history of it all, and its connection to the current, Trump terrorist-designation news.

Hey, we tries nots to steers ya wrong...

Here's how whirlwind the news is these days.  About 10 days ago, I wrote here that I had another column planned, but some major news broke, so I put the story on hold.  That story that broke, by the way, was Attorney General William Barr releasing his summary/not summary let on the Mueller Report.  And since that day, the stories have just come flying off the shelves, and that original article has been pushed back so far that -- even though it's just 10 days ago -- it's old news and pointless at this point.

But even being "out of date," the point of it does show how far off the ledge the far right and Republican Party has gotten in its melting down against liberals and Democrats while trying to shore up its sinking ship of state, The U.S.S. Trump, and its failing fascist brand, 

Without any comment, because none (especially at this point) are needed, these are all headlines from a single page that appeared on March 24 on the home page of RawStory, a standard, thoughtful, admittedly left-leaning news site I tend to check out.  I am not making this up.  This is not The Onion.  It is not The National Enquirer or Breitbart News.  I didn't change one word.  It's just 10 headlines -- nothing more -- of that one day, word-for-word.

To be clear, these aren't the only headlines on the page.  It's maybe half of them.  There was other news mixed in.  And certainly an editor chose to feature these stories.  The point here though isn't that this is "all" the far-right thinks about, enables and does. It isn't.  But that any of this is news ever is ghastly -- let alone all on the same day alone speaks volumes about far-right derangement.


Alan Dershowitz: Congress should be sued for investigating too much

Fox News pastor: Christians who follow Trump are spiritually superior to other believers

Devin Nunes rages Mueller report should be ‘burned up’

Rep. Jim Jordan comes unglued and demands FBI reveal ‘cabal’ of top agents who are out to get Trump

We’re not going to go there’: Chris Wallace shuts down Jason Chaffetz for veering into Mueller conspiracy theory

Ted Cruz melts down on CNN over possibility Democrats might still attempt to impeach Trump

Trump defender blows off prospect of Russian interference in Mueller report by blaming Obama

Fox News' Smear campaign against Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is working

Trump’s billionaire pick for the United Nations has lavished donations on GOP senators who must approve her: report

Second Parkland shooting survivor commits suicide: police

I would have expected this tweet from Don Jr. or Devin Nunes, but instead it came from CNN.  What they wrote is that -- "Special counsel Robert Mueller found that no one in the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in 2016 -- but Democrats are not ready to accept that finding "

Seriously, CNN? You've actually read the full report?  Cool. One anxiously waits to hear the details of what else it says!!  Oh, right, sorry, the actual report hasn't been released yet, so we don't have an idea yet what it really says.  And by "we," I include CNN.

That aside, CNN is also wrong. Attorney General Barr's summary says that the report states there was no "chargeable collusion" -- that's totally different from saying it didn't occur and no one in the campaign conspired, which even Barr himself doesn't claim it says.  All it found is that the Special Counsel investigation doesn't have the evidence of collusion beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard needed to indict.

This didn't get much attention and largely slipped through the cracks, but I found it notable.

Last week, Jessikka Aro, a Finnish investigative journalist, was told by the U.S. State Department that she would be receiving the highly-regarded International Women of Courage Award, which would be presented to her by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Ms. Aro's credentials are significant, among other things facing death threats over exposing Russia's propaganda efforts well-before it came to light with the 2016 presidential elections.

Then there was a slight hiccup.  The department read Jessikka Aro's social media posts and -- in addition to taking on the Russian government in her professional work-- it turns out that personally she often said things critical of Trump.

Not long after, and I'm sure this is just pure coincidence, the State Department took back the award.  Their explanation is that the original announcement was just a "regrettable error."

A U.S. diplomatic source who was aware of the department discussions said, “It created a shitstorm of getting her unceremoniously kicked off the list. I think it was absolutely the wrong decision on so many levels,” adding that decision “had nothing to do with her work.”

According to ForeignPolicy.com, "The State Department spokesperson said in an email that Aro was 'incorrectly notified' that she had been chosen for the award and that it was a mistake that resulted from 'a lack of coordination in communications with candidates and our embassies.'”

The spokesperson added, “We regret this error. We admire Ms. Aro’s achievements as a journalist, which were the basis of U.S. Embassy Helsinki’s nomination."
So, let's get this straight -- the U.S. State Department admires Jessikka Aro's achievements as a journalist," informed her that she was going to be given an award for her courage, then read her social media posts critical of Trump, and somehow made a "regrettable error" and "incorrectly notified" her about it.

I'm still trying to figure out how one incorrectly notifies someone so accomplished and courageous about an award under any condition.  But especially when the department says they actually admire her achievements.  With no explanation of what this lack of communication was, that made the error so regrettable. 

Hey, maybe it actually was just a regrettable error of an incorrect notification where an admired and courageous journalist wasn't supposed to get an award for courage in admirable journalism..

Or...

The Trump administration is just so reprehensibly thin-skinned because of the pathological ego at the top that the concept of "courage" is anathema to them all and the Second Amendment is the only one they care about, but most-especially not the first about a free press without government interference, and after reading critical comments by the otherwise-admired journalist they were terrified, or just offended at being criticized by a courageous reporter, and backed out.

To be clear, as shameful, pathetic and problematic as it is -- as government precedent and just on general principle -- this is not a First Amendment issue.  But you can see it from here...

The entire ForeignPolicy.com article by Reid Standish and Robbie Gramer can be found here.

Yesterday, I was exchanging some notes with my friend Michael Shoob, who is an accomplished filmmaker of such films as the drama Driven and the wonderful documentary Bush's Brain, based on the book about Karl Rove.  We were discussing Roger Stone's ill-advise, egregious  Instagram threat towards the judge overseeing his case, and Michael off-handedly mentioned that, as he put it, "My Dad was a pretty gentle, tolerant guy (and a Federal Judge for 37 years), I feel sure that he would have sent the Marshalls out there to pick him up and Stone would have been back in jail."

As low-key and modest about his pretty gentle and tolerant dad as Michael was, the larger story is that Marvin Shoob was the Atlanta judge who oversaw the infamous BNL bank scandal case in 1992 about the $5 billion unauthorized bank "loan" to Iraq laundered by the GHW Bush Administration -- and who, as a result of it all, publicly criticized the U.S. Attorney General for not pursuing the case with an independent counsel. That Attorney General? William Barr, just nominated by Trump and approved by the GOP Senate...

That's of note because, as Rachel Maddow devoted a long story on her show yesterday, Barr now oversees the Special Counsel and has been publicly critical of the investigation.  So, it's uncertain and understandably concerning to people what the future holds for Robert Mueller and his team.

With that in mind, this article from (as whimsy has it) yesterday, as well -- it was a busy day yesterday, though this came first thing in the morning -- in Politico, written by Darren Samuelsohn, about major difficulties for Trump and his circle face regardless of what happens to the Special Counsel investigation.  The story, "Trump can't run the Mueller playbook on New York feds" is a detailed look at how how Robert Mueller has passed off a good amount of his investigation to another division in the U.S. Justice Department, federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York.  And the SDNY (also known sardonically as the "Sovereign Districst of New York) is renowned for its independence -- and has no parameters constricting what it investigates, unlike the mandate for the Special Counsel.  Further, what it does investigate is large state-related, and most charges it can come up could be outside the purview of a presidential partner.  Moreover, they are so independent they may not feel constrained by department policy and could therefore indict a sitting president if they felt it was justified.

(As John Sale, a former SDNY and Watergate prosecutor says in the article, “I’m thoroughly convinced the SDNY will make its own evaluation. They will not say that’s a department policy.  They’re obviously looking at the president and I wouldn’t rule out that they could decide you can indict a sitting president.”)

Among the areas they are currently investigating are the Trump inaugural, Michael Cohen and the Trump Organization.  And many of the people they have as cooperating witnesses are among those who have known and worked with Trump the longest, like Cohen, Trump organization chief financial officer Allen Weiselberg, and David Pecker, CEO of AMI, the owner of National Enquirer.  

The article notes that Trump's difficulties with the SDNY are compounded because, unlike his personal attacks on Mueller, in an effort to discredit the Special Counsel in the eyes of his base, he will be challenged to do with same with the SDNY.  Not only is there not a single personality to focus on, but their investigation is not centered on Trump's time in the White House but before, so there can be no claims of Executive Privilege nor charges of "witch hunts" against supposedly non-existent collusion with Russia.  And their investigations can (and likely will) go on long past whenever Robert Mueller delivers his own report.

The article is terrific and interesting on its own merits, but for anyone kept up sleepless at night about whether Robert Mueller is fired and what will happen to his report, the piece is like an electrocharge jolt to a weak heart, giving it strength, joy and a new, long life

You can read it all here.

A friend sent me an article on thrillist.com that rated all the Super Bowl ads, and he asked for my comments about them.
 
Though I’ve written TV ads, I’m hardly an expert.  But (and this doesn’t make me an expert either), I’m named after a relative who was an expert.  Really.  Isadore James Wagner, and I’m Robert James Elisberg.  That’s why I always write professionally as “Robert J. Elisberg,” as an homage to him.  He was one of the “pioneers” in using singing commercials on radio.  I have an excellent book on old-time radio, The Big Broadcast, sort of an encyclopedia, which has a section on commercials.  They give about a dozen examples of famous radio jingles, and two of them are his.  (One was used for many decades and even I got to hear it on TV, the “What’ll you have?  Pabst Blue Ribbon” jingle.)  He also gave Studs Terkel his first break on radio – and in Terkel’s two memoirs he always give Iz credit.  When I read an interview with him giving credit to “That adman I.J. Wagner,” I ran to tell my mom, and she said, “Oh, yes, I know.  When Iz died, Studs spoke at his funeral.”
 
A story about him and advertising which in a way relates to commenting on Super Bowl ads.  Years back I was talking with an elderly screenwriter, David P. Lewis, who used to write ads in Chicago.  I mentioned having a cousin who did that, I.J. Wagner.  He said he didn’t know him, but worked at the agency where he had worked.  The story is that when he got hired there, he was a know-it-all kid, and when he was told that one of their clients was Thomas J. Webb Coffee (very big in the Midwest at the time), and one of Iz’s big ads, David said he went on a know-it-all rant about how he hated the ad because it was so annoying.  The supervisor went and got a rate book and let him read it – it showed that the ad was WILDLY successful and incredibly well-remembered.  The point being, he realized, that you’re not writing art but trying to get the public to remember your product and then buy it.
 
(The ad – not one of his singing jingles -- was an annoying woman’s raspy voice calling out, “Morrrrrtimer!!  Don’t forget to get the Thomas J. Webb Cofffffffff-eeeeeeeee!!!!”)
 
Before I looked at what Thrillist wrote, I passed along my two favorites.  (I should add that I didn’t think most of the ads were all that wonderful, and there were the only two which, for me, leaped out.  I liked others, but in fairness I didn't see all the ads, and the ones I did see didn’t strike me as great ads, just sort of fun.)  My favorites were --
 
The NFL ad, promoting the upcoming documentary on the history of the NFL.  It wasn’t really a “product” and didn’t make the point of what it was promoting all that great, but I just loved the ad.
 
The Microsoft ad for its usability features for disabled kids.
 
As a special mention, I liked the ad for Bubly soft drink with Michael Buble.
 
As for the Thrillist article, you can check it out here -- which has the added advantage of embedding all the commercials so you can watch the ones you missed list or check out those you did like again.  My own comments aren't comprehensive, so I just skimmed the article, but these are my random thoughts, following the Thrillist order from worst to best.
 
And first of those is that their comments seem to be that if a commercial isn’t all that funny it should be downgraded.  While I understand that to a degree if a commercial is trying to be funny, they seem to miss that the point of a commercial isn’t to be funny but…to sell a product.  And sometimes being “too” funny is felt to detract from the product.

While they rated the Jason Bateman/Hyundai commercial as the worst, I thought it was wonderfully produced and great fun.  However, I think it was a lousy ad for selling their cars.  (In fact, I didn’t remember if it was for Hyundai or Honda.)  So, I don’t know if that should make it it high on the list or low -- but definitely higher than "worst."
 
Their comment about how one of the reasons they didn't like the WeatherTech ad was because they felt the cellphone holider should be higher so that you could actually see the phone was idiotic.  The whole point of the product is that so you keep your hands on the wheel and eyes on the road.  NO, they don’t want you looking at the phone.
 
I like the Stella Artois ad, though because I've never seen Sex in the City, and don't think I've seen The Big Lebowski in 15-20 years, I didn't quite get all the references, but I thought it was well-done and fun.  And think that Thrillist missed the point of why it worked. And I liked, too, the quick but great use of "The Most Interesting Man in the World" -- not just because it was a nice addition and a tweak to another beer company, Dos Equis, but I suspect there was a bit of joyful comeuppance by the actor, Jonathan Goldsmith, who had been let go by the ad agency for being too old.

I didn't think the Pepsi ad with Steve Carell ad was all that effective in selling the product especially well, but I thought he was great fun in it.

Though I don’t watch Game of Thrones, I thought the Bud Light crossover ad with the TV show.  was AWFUL.  Not just because the two styles didn’t mesh, but Budweiser thought it was a great idea to have one of its iconic characters, the Bud Knight, get killed in a battle and then decapitated.  Seriously????
 
I thought the Alexa ad was well-produced and fun, but thought it lost its focus on what it was selling.  What I think they were trying to sell was how great and versatile Alexa is, and that it can do SO much, though some efforts were misguided because Alexa shouldn’t be used for that.  A good point in theory, but it doesn’t come through properly, instead it looks like they’re saying Alexa doesn’t work well.
 
How weird that they describe the Mr. Peanut ad as “it’s all pretty stupid,” but rate it as #15.
 
I dislike the Verizon ads that have been running for the last few weeks – with the First Responders, and the tag line about how “They save everyone, and we make sure they got the call.”  The ads themselves are good – but I hate the tag line.  If the ad was the same and they ended with “Verizon salutes those who put themselves out to save others,” then that would be just fine.  But to suggest that Verizon deserves to be part of the First Responder “team” and deserves part of the praise and thanks, simply because they connect the phone call is bothersome.  Furthers, as far as I know, there isn’t an issue with any other service not being able to connect to 911 and First Responders.  Besides which, how do we know that in these cases the call to the First Responders was made using Verizon service??  Maybe it was, but maybe not.  Either way, though, they are NOT part of the team.
 
I can’t say that that Bo Jackson commercial for Sprint was very good, and they even say so, too, yet make it #11 best simply because they like seeing Bo Jackson!
 
Thrillist saying that “Obviously, it’s hard to get too outraged over a clip of Andy Warhol eating a burger” misuses the word “outraged.”  I thought the ad was fairly effective in getting your attention, which is a critical aspect of any ad, though I can assure you there were people at our group who were indeed close to outraged by it, thinking it boring, a bit creepy and inexplicable.  But at least them making it #4 made my point to those “outraged” folks that the ad was effective in getting attention and being remembered.
 
Okay, two of my favorite three made their top three, so I can’t complain about that – the Microsoft ad and the one for Bubly.  Though I wouldn’t have put the Bubly ad #1.  But – but – they completely ignored and left out the NFL promotional spot.  Perhaps because it was just a “promotion” and not a tradition ad per se, but so what?  It was great.  And even if one didn’t like it, you at least include it!!!
 
And that they thought the avocado ad was the second best is bizarre.  Among other things, it didn’t do much to sell avocados (focusing mostly on the unrelated, goofy antics of the humans) …which is the point of an ad.
 
Well, it’s all personal taste.  And I admire that Thrillist took the leap to rate them all in order.
 
 
 
 
I think your recommended tag line for the Bob Dylan “Blowin’ in the Wind” ad is a perfectly good one for commenting on Dylan’s song, but not an especially good one for selling the product.

I swear this is true.

Between 1941-1943, Theodore Geisel was an editorial cartoonist for a publication called PM.  During that period, he drew over 400 political cartoons, using his pen name, 'Dr. Seuss," Later, of course he became a beloved author and illustrator of children's books.

This is one of his actual editorial cartoons from 75 years ago. It's not just the caption that is so eye-catching today, but all the prescient, identifying detail.
​

I like The Rachel Maddow Show a lot.  I watch it most days.  I think she not only does very good work, but but often great, important work.  I do tend to record it so that I can fast-forward through the parts she's reported before, or through the long history lessons she's given that I know, or the repeating of a point four times to make sure you get it.  I understand her doing that, and I'm okay with it -- but that doesn't mean I have to listen to it regularly, which is why God invented the fast-forward button.

But every once she goes off the rails.  And last night was one of those.

With ALL the news stories to cover today -- the 11 murders at the Pittsburgh synagogue, the 14 pipe bombs that got mailed, the two murders at a grocery store when the killer couldn't get in a black church, Trump trying to claim he could sign a racist executive order to rewrite the Constitution, the murder of Jamal Khashoggi which Turkish authorities expanded that day, the 400 immigrant children still separated from their parents, and much, much, much more -- and it being only week before the mid-term elections, I thought it was irresponsible of the show last night to spend 23 MINUTES on their LEAD STORY being about Dodge City, Kansas voter suppression, which largely repeated an story she's been covering repeatedly for the past week.

Some added perspective.  A one-hour primetime TV show has about 44 minutes of content.  For a news show on MSNBC, it might be different.  But that's the ballpark.  So, that means that when you open with a 23-minute segment, that's not a-third of your hour show...it's HALF.  Half of The Rachel Maddow Show was devoted to a lead story they've covered repeatedly for the past week and even longer.

It's not that it wasn't a good story or an important one.  It's significant  But this wasn't a breaking story, which is what you generally have as the lead -- they'd covered the story regularly all week. It wasn't even particularly an extension of the story with significant new details, which also generally justifies sometime being a lead story.  In fact, If they wanted to give the story another 23 minutes and put it on later in the broadcast -- that would have been too much, but really okay.  Indeed, if they wanted it to be the lead story -- that would be fine, too, but for 10 minutes for anything that was new to report. But...not 23 MINUTES as the lead story they've covered repeatedly -- and with SO MUCH else going on, especially as the election date nears...including other major stories of voter suppression, not just in a town with 27,000 people but like in the entire state of Georgia, North Dakota and Indiana, for starters.

And I suspect because they devoted SO much landscape as their lead story last night, they'll feel compelled to give it even more precious air time tonight, with a long follow-up.  And beyond.

It's a good story.  It's an important story.  But this was out of perspective.