Your theory is elegance itself. I hadn't noticed the negative symmetry shared by Gibson, Hasselfhof, Lohan, Spears and Wilson until you pointed it out. With Spitzer, the zealous law enforcer caught with prostitutes -- he had surpassed his much admired father. The guilt at having done so must have been overwhelming. Maybe he feels some inner satisfaction at having removed it at last.

You must also be mightily amused by Mel and his family's "private commiseration" with Britney consummated at a Russian restaurant this weekend. It's like the initials WTF aren't big enough for one's amazement at the galactic weirdness of it all.

But what do you make of McGreevey and his newly revealed proclivity for threesomes with his wife-to-be? Does that change your theory at all? I mean, it's one thing if she was deceived by a sexual Quisling. Is it any different if she knew all along and played along? Do you think any of our so-called heroes get out alive, image-wise? Or is the self-immolation inevitable? (Oh, by the way, hot off the presses -- Steve-O of Jackass fame entered the Immolation Zone just this news cycle).

Posted by: Hillary/Us at March 17, 2008 11:51 AM

Cintra, you are brilliant and insightful but you are so fucking ugly. I mean good God get a little sun or something, you are so fucking pasty you make a ghost look tan. Put a fucking bag over that ugly mug of yours; you fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down. I know you think you were hot in fucking 1991 (which is arguable) be Jesus tap dancing Christ that was a long fucking time ago and you are a fucking beast now. Good God please spare us from you hideous visage, I mean seriously, I know Jewish guys that wouldn't bang you, Hasidic guys even.

Posted by: Isaac Mizrahe at March 17, 2008 10:59 PM

Hey Mizrahe,

Ugly? Seriously? On exactly what corner do you buy your crack dude? I think you're getting a raw deal. The Cintra is a lot of things: Sometimes infuriating, bionically sarcastic, often highlarious -- but the one thing she's never been is ugly. I'm sorry, almost anything else, I'd hold my tongue -- but she's always been smokin' hot dude -- blazing. You're not even close to reality with that one.

Not that she needs any input on this topic from the likes of me. But I've been following her career for some time now -- so I just had to weigh in...But then again, what kind of gentleman would stoop this low? For shame Isaac -- do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

Ms. Wilson -- I'd actually come here to joke (and then go to hell for being out of line) about our new governor's confession that in fact, he'd also been "seeing" someone on the side -- that he'd kept his wife "in the dark" about his affair the same way she'd kept him in the dark about hers. Bla bla more jokes about being blind to the evil that men do and so on.

Posted by: Hillary/Us at March 17, 2008 11:34 PM

Methinks "Isaac" is a thwarted authoress now working the edible undies display at Victoria's Secret in NYC, regretting the $2,000 she spent on a pair of mismatched strawberry jam-bags some "doctor" shoved into her tits in Guadalajara, in 1999, you know, to further that literary career.

It wasn't the botched boobies that sunk you, "Isaac," it was the writing. Now shut-up and sell those yummy undies, like a good girl. You have a distempered Shih-Tzu to support.

La Wilson--ugly she ain't. "Isaac" would kill for Wilson's (ostensibly genuine) rack and waistline alone, much less that glowy, 1920s baby-doll look she's been rockin' with the face. The chick knows how to light-up a room just by strolling along, and that's more than most of Hollywood's A-List Airbrushees could dream of. She does piss people off, from time to time, but not one of us can ever truly have it all.

I am a(n) Hasidic Jew and I approve this message.

Posted by: Juan del la Sahara at March 18, 2008 8:40 AM

Issac is usually on my you tube channel calling me a fat whore or posting lyrically intellectual comments such as "get of the niggerjew, jew jew boo" , I guess he became tired of his adult baby service and Womble porn and decided to troll-a-rama over here? Or perhaps all that estrogen in his bottle water leached via heat and melted plastic has turned Issac into a little catty bitch? Or his flesh light for bantams has yet to appear in that plain brown wrapper?

Cintra Wilson is very romantically beautiful apart from being one of the greatest living American writers and essayist. without Cintra Wilson there could be no Diablo Cody and no Super Amanda. She needs no defending but the internet culture still dictates that fans and friends stand their ground.

Bottom line for me is that Sinbad and I have been trying to dodge snipers at The Costco samples booth and we'll both be over the border to North Beach Trader Joes by dusk, safely I hope with one square each in hand dolled out with discernment by the cantankerous Crow, Chelsea's ceramic straightening iron and Eric Clapton's greatest hits in hand.

I am occasionally mistaken for Shoshanna Lonstein's taller calf endowed sister and I approved this message

Posted by: Super Amanda Loves Cintra Wilson! at March 18, 2008 12:25 PM

I look so pretty!!

Posted by: Caligua Hurt at March 18, 2008 12:29 PM

Cintra is a great writer. She's like Philip K. Dick, except that he was a man and he worte science fiction and he was a genius and he was a brilliant writer. Besides that they're pretty much the same. Without her there wouldn't be a Super Amanda! I think that statement really, really, really says a whole hell of a lot. I view Cintra as the writing version of Chelsea Handler, without all of the genius of course.

Posted by: Roy Cohen at March 18, 2008 12:36 PM

Ya know, sometimes anagrams are fun. A cool anagram for "Cintra Wilson"?

"Crawl Into Sin".

Don't run, don't walk...crawl.

Posted by: Juan de la Sahara at March 18, 2008 3:24 PM

Hola Juan D,

By the way, what did you think of Barry today -- the speech and all? I'm not trying to draw you into a give and take for my own pleasure -- I'm just curious. Seriously.

It seemed like it did more than the assignment -- which was neutralize the wacky Rev. It was like watching, I don't know Juan -- I felt like I was watching history in the making, like I'd tell people I heard that live. Kind of teary at the end -- I'm not ashamed to admit.

Posted by: Hillary/Us at March 18, 2008 5:16 PM

The speech? The SPEECH?

The fact that he needed to make this speech at all--to "spin" his very intimate spiritual and disciplinary relationship with the Jew-hating creator of the 'Audacity of Hope' slogan--is tenuous.

His Kennedyesque flourishes mask a real problem. Substance on many fronts, now, including moral ones.

We all know he has learned to be an oral mimic of both Kennedy and MLK Jr., but the fact remains that he has gathered/co-opted much of his doctrine and his "thrust" from his delerious Pastor/ex-Pastor.

Witnessing history today? Yeah, it's part of history. So was Britney Spears flashing her hoo-haw. History is relative.

No, I was not impressed, beyond his already very studied and calibrated stage-presence, which is now more apparent than ever.

This is the bottom line for me: An unproven pet-rock, fairy-dust candidate is in thick (and has ~been~ in thick) with someone who is not only an ideological racist, but a flat-out racist, which is not only ironic, but vastly disturbing.

If Barrack Obama is his own man, and such a "visionary," an independent thinker...ready to lead the world on all diplomatic and inclusive fronts (as he claims he is), full of wisdom, moxie, and brilliance...AND if he now claims to utterly REPUDIATE these serious & longtime ideological racisms of his mentor, then why did he not have the visionary, independent, thinking "strength" to leave this man's fold the moment he heard such garbage?

That's a question that was not addressed or answered--yet.

Why did he not have the innate motivation and sense to be offended ~before~ and thus leave...and we know without question that dear Barry has heard these strains of thought many, many times.

Why, if he is SO visionary and self-empowered, did he not blanch at these very serious doctrines the first time he heard them and say: "This is fundamentally incompatible with my worldview as a strong leader who determines both policy and practice! I am strong enough to reject this massively flawed thinking. I shall seek less-flawed counsel elsewhere."

Why did he not immediately forge his own way (as any true non-follower ~would~), i.e. find a new church, etc., if he is now so utterly disgusted, as he claims.

Instead, he intially demurred that the man was merely like an "old uncle" (a racist uncle), and he was uncly enough to have influenced Bar to snag the audacious hope title for his crap-tome.

I find it very duplicitous, and these are serious questions.

The irony is that Obama did not want "race" to be part of this campaign (rightly so), but his personal history has begged to differ.

Highly, irrevocably unimpressed. Don't mess with the Jews, baby. Not even remotely.

(Well, you asked).

Posted by: Juan de la Sahara at March 18, 2008 8:07 PM

Juan de la Glass of Cold Water to the Dome,

I certainly did ask you - thanks for that bracing serving of another point of view. It's exactly what the doctor ordered on a day when the whole country, (including me), was crushing hard on B. Funk. I appreciate it buddy.

On a wholly separate note -- RIP Arthur C.

Posted by: Hillary/Us at March 18, 2008 10:29 PM

NO! NO! NO! Bear Stearns is not in trouble. Don't move your money from Bear! That's just silly! Don't be silly!

Oh look. Here comes helicopter Ben! Hey there! Gonna get the IMF to dump that gold yet?

Posted by: Jim Cramer at March 19, 2008 1:06 AM

the speech? the speech was pretty damn honest despite employing the word 'stain.'
Seriously it's the economy and the world bank that people care about, race is for the junior league. My concern is if Obama is going to shouting and emoting all the time what happens when he has to have tea with heads of state, I just can't see his quiet side I guess.

Posted by: Super Amanda at March 19, 2008 2:31 PM

Amanda -- One reason I love this comment area is its unique approach to reality. It's so freeing to be able to say "We all know," as opposed to making one's case by careful reasoning, citing of sources and so on.

I thought someone conservative and pro-Israel like Andrew Sullivan at The Atlantic might give you another point of view on the speech. I also thought Juan would prefer that ideological slant. Sullivan said:

What I do know is that it was the right speech, with the right nuance and brave. If America cannot embrace such complexity, then that says more about our current polity than it does about Obama.

'Nuff said.

Posted by: Hillary/Us at March 19, 2008 4:02 PM

"someone conservative and pro-Israel like Andrew Sullivan"

I did not say I agreed with the speech, I just said it was 'honest.'
I've spent about nine months debating with racial extremists and nationalists on You Tube and have found it illuminating to listen to people honestly express how they feel about race.

The liberal that is mad at Obama is most likely turning around and paying his illegal immigrant nanny as little as possible. Catholics know that they paid out gazillions to molesters but they don't dare right off the church? I'm still not sure who I'm voting for but at least Obama did not lie about who he is.

I think Israel has the right to exist but they've gone too far and I'm tired of fearing the label of anti-Semite when I want to perhaps critique their apartheid and less than stellar human rights record so I doubt a pro-Israel conservative is going to connect anything for me but I'll check out Sullivan's column anyway.
Cheers

Posted by: Super Amanda at March 19, 2008 7:43 PM

Amanda - Phew. We're on the pretty much the same page re: Israel etc. I feared we were not so I tread carefully -- thus the Andrew Sullivan. As you were...

Posted by: Hillary/Us at March 19, 2008 8:25 PM

Y'all are spooking me out. I've been thinking much the same re: Israel (for quite awhile), but from a slightly different angle, perhaps.

Super-A's blunt assessment of Barry's speech was spot-on in many respects. All this stardust and posturing and elegant wordsmithing (and Bary is a star, who postures elegantly with well-hammered words) grows painfully thin under scrutiny. How is he over tea, exactly, in Pakistan, peradventure?

And scrutiny is what he's under. I noted before that, while I prefer Hillary, I do like Barrack Hussein. But I like him less these days, and one of the reasons is due to his increasing arrogance (not necessarily the "good" kind of arrogance, but the "sense of entitlement" arrogance), and also for this bizarre situation with the dear Reverend Wright.

Barry is intimately close to this man, and has been so, even while in senatorial office. He has heard this man's anti-Semitic screeds, and yet he did not (apparently) have the vision or backbone to either challenge these dangerous ideologies heretofore, or distance himself from a man whose beliefs he now conveniently and vehemently "repudiates." Why did he not "repudiate" long ago? Did he not feel strong enough, or independent enough? Not very presidential. No, not at all. Wright has held him in some sort of thrall, it seems, to the point wherein Obama "borrowed" the very name of his hit soccer-mom book, 'The Audacity of Hope' from the lore of Wright himself.

I thought it noble of Barry to have not rejected his Pastor outright, or to have condemned the man categorically. His loyalty was very reasoned on that count, I think.

But what I would have liked to have heard was something along the lines of: "I have heard these divisive and dangerous anti-Semitic and anti-American words from Pastor Wright on various occasions, and while I still admire and respect the man, I have personally taken issue with him about these very things on occasions in the past. In a spirit of fraternal discourse, I have challenged him then about these matters that I repudiated then, and which I now repudiate."

He did not say that, nor (apparently) did he ever challenge his Pastor. That is disturbing. I know the structure of African-American churches--not hierarchical and dominating in Vat-cat way, but rather quite fraternal in terms of leadership, at least in principle. Autonomous churches, by and large. Again, the (apparent) fact that Bar allowed himself to encounter and hear these ideologies unchallenged, by a mentor, speaks of a man who lacks independent vision (and perhaps) backbone on some very key issues. Not good in any scenario, and far worse if one is shooting for the Oval Office under the "I am the new, new bringer of unity & change & hope" slogan.

So it all is a muddle for him, but the public (that portion that cares, and a lot of people in the Dem Party are "caring" right now, mobilization-wise) needs to know these things. This will sting Obama terribly in a duel with McCain and indeed already has. It portends a great deal as to whether he is fit to win the GE, viable to win it. His little lead against Hillary has already eroded due to this, and the erosion is more bracing when juxtaposed against McCain.

There has long been a very strong antagonism in black churches against the Jewish community. Not a hatred--I wouldn't go that far. Long, long ago (in a galaxy that seems far, far away) I sat on an ecumenical task force and this sense of antagonism held by ecclesio-centered black communities for the Jewish communities has always been palpable. Let's just say that black pastors and leaders have pervasively put themselves at odds with the Jews for reasons stemming from perceived "disadvantages," almost always ( but hardly exclusively) in urban settings. It's not hatred (for I find it very difficult to believe, from my experience, that the black community "hates" anyone), but rather "anger," as Barry said.

Well, the problem of unity is certainly not being addressed by Obama's hero/mentor Wright, and Barry's "spin speech" is really so much toothpaste trying to be funneled back into the tube, as I see it.

Israel has the right to exist, IMO, mainly because it...um...~exists~ and because we are facing much bigger socio-politico-economic "troubles" in our dealings with the Muslim world. Serious, obvious troubles. That being said, there must be continued and ongoing efforts to heal the breach between Israel and the Muslim nations, and the US must be at the vanguard of this effort--along the lines/intentions of a Jimmy Carter (but one who is an actual politician and not just a "nice nice man" {or woman}).

For myriad reasons, our current economic and globally diplomatic (and, to an extent, even environmental) woes are bound-up in big knots with this endless Middle Eastern/Far Eastern drama, and that is why Obama's strange bedfellowing with Wright is (and should be) alarming.

It's sad that so many pundits, even in the Dem Party, are saying that the current battle between Hill and Bar is just plain bad for the country (the implication always seeming to be that one them--uh, HILLARY--needs to step down and leave the fray). I think THAT's disgusting. The Dem Party has been witless and flaky long before this epic duel between our first potential female or African-American Prez nominee.

Obama has made race-elations a BIG issue now--he himself has done it...via his intimate association with (and discipleship at the feet of) a vocally anti-Semitic black leader. This not negligible. Not only does it make it much harder for him to get the nomination, but, to my mind, makes it nigh impossible for him to beat McCain in the GE. If Hillary wins big in Pennsylvania (which seems a lockety-lock) and something is made of these Florida-Michigan redo notions, then it is has now become far more easy to envision her gaining the nomination by a Super-delegate nose-hair.

Ideally, it may actually be coming to the point wherein (if you are a Democrat), you'll need to start genuinely shouting--and loudly--for that 'dream-ticket' of Hill/Obama-Obama/Hill, if we are to spruce-up even a corner of this fading nation's luster once again. Hillary has already shown herself open to such a ticket (wise move), while Obama has derided the idea.

At this point, he may need to humble himself a tad, detach from the shiny (but misleading) glare of the klieg lights, and ponder the idea. It would be a great opportunity for him to really season himself (and that's what he needs most--some hard-core seasoning) and then go on to take the presidency for himself in eight years. I'd vote for him at that time, under such conditions. You bet I would.

Then again, what the hell do I know about anything, and thank Zeus that the American People can still surprise you (in a good way). I have to believe at least that much.

Ciao, kittens. Good discourse in these here parts. No mistake.

And sad sad sad to hear of A.C. Clarke, Hillary/Us. I'm with you on that. Do you know that a he was the "question" to an "answer" on Jeopardy last night!??? For a moment I thought Alex was going to say a quick "in memoriam" when the contestant came up with his name, but then I remembered--duh--that the show was taped weeks ago. Hollywood--ever behind the times, but ever a bedraggled soothsayer.

Posted by: Juan de la Sahara at March 20, 2008 10:39 AM

My lovely quote about Cintar is coming up in google serches-see? I kill Issacs dead, like glitter RAID.

I think actually I know I'm voting for the democratic front runner (NADER BE DAMNED!) I had not heard the comments about Natalie Holloway until last night, which were pretty atrocious but disowning the guy would be hypocritical even if it may end up costing him the race now.

Note to self: have no one attached to my campaign who is not doing a fair impression of the lead in the rock opera TOMMY when I run for office!

Let's see what happens.

This is how Hot Rod Hedi and I feel about the war in Iraq by the way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwe4Nv9N5lw

Posted by: Super Amanda at March 20, 2008 7:38 PM

Whoooo!

Super-A, you really are a woman of passion, substance, and then some. And them some after that.

BTW, here's a piece from the LA Times, from a black man (self-described) and his thoughts about Barry's speech. Just another opinon, but he hit all the notes I'd been trying to sing:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-oew-meyers20mar20,0,4038350.story?track=mostviewed-storylevel

Ciao, Dregularly Good People!

Juan

Posted by: Juan de la Sahara at March 21, 2008 12:21 AM

Juan De La, Super Amanda, Ms. Wilson et al,

Michael Myers, the author of the article recommended by Juan, is an interesting thinker and founder of the New York Civil Rights Coalition. (He reorganized the New York City Civil Rights Coalition into a more cohesive organization). The fundamental differences between his style of problem solving and Barry's are why we have elections. The conservative approach to race is to be above it, so to speak. So noted.

Let's take a closer look at Myers, his organization and its backers.

The Manhattan Institute is a think tank to which Tamar Jacoby, assistant secretary of the New York Civil Rights Coalition, belongs. The Institute is funded by organizations such as the Scaife Foundation (funds conservative causes), Bristol Meyers Squibb (large pharmaceutical company) and Exxon Mobil (large oil company). The Institute was against the federal government negotiating for lower drug prices in the Medicare Part D prescription program. They opposed federal regulation of drugs like Vioxx.

That's why the VA pays lower prices for drugs than, say, my mom. Frank Lichtenberg, Institute member and Columbia University business professor, believes that drug price negotiation is dangerous to veterans. George Kelling was co-author of the seminal Atlantic magazine article "Broken Windows" that was the seed for Mayor Rudy Giulani's police strategy of community policing.

Insitute members who also belong to the coalition include Abigail Thernstrom -- noted affirmative action opponent and thinker on race politics. Other Institute members include William Kristol -- conservative pundit, David Asman -- Fox News anchor and Peggy Noonan, former special assistant to Ronald Reagan.

My point, which I think I share with both Myers, Juan and Obama -- is that, at the end of the day, it's not the color of your skin -- but the content of your character (and that of your board of directors), that matters most. Myers may be black, but he is part of a larger societal program with which, for the most part, I disagree. But thanks, Juan, for pointing out this column, it was illuminating. And thanks to you all for, you know, the exchange of thoughts. It's just great.

Posted by: Hillary/Us at March 21, 2008 5:33 AM

Yes, there are issues with the NAACP (I've always had 'em), but Myers's piece struck such a tone of truth (next Obama book, "The Tone of Truth") that I felt his viewpoint should be at least seen, and sweet sassy Hillary/Us came through.

Yeah, babe. You are exactly right, and well said. But this was one tim ein which I really felt that the NAACP (and Myers, en particulier) sort of "got it right."

On we go...to what? A better USA--good grief, let's make it happen.

Posted by: JdlS at March 22, 2008 7:25 PM

Bill Richardson is the first...Finally, a g'rup speaks.

Hopefully the rest of the superdels are listening.

Barry is on vacation till Wednesday -- so hopefully we won't help John McCain's campaign between now and then.

Posted by: H/U? at March 24, 2008 1:29 AM

Crikey, people!
I thank ye most humbly for defending my honor and visage. But that's really not what's important right now. What's important right now is that Amanda has fantastic tits. I think we can all agree on this.

Posted by: Cintra Loves Amanda Wilson at March 29, 2008 1:46 AM

Hey wait, do you think Isaac Mizrahe thought that picture of John Hurt doing the Caligula drag act from I, Claudius on this post was ME?

That would be, like, the compliment of my LIFE. OMG.

That, and/or shining the combat boots of Rachel Maddow, which I am not worthy to do.

Life is good.

Posted by: Cintra "Queer for Rachel Maddow" Wilson at March 29, 2008 2:05 AM