Earlier this evening, PBS aired the first part of Ken Burn's latest epic documentary, "The War," which focuses on the American experience of the Second World War. Tonight's opening installment was gripping viewing, complete with extraordinary footage and moving stories of everyday veterans. The overwhelming sense of tragedy and devastation permeate a narrative that also captures both human honor and indignity. Weaved through the events of war are the stories of four American towns--one in the West, the South, the Midwest and the East--and how the war changed them forever.

As I watched, however, I became increasingly annoyed. Not with "The War" itself, mind you, but with the review of it I read earlier today from Alessandra Stanley in the The New York Times. Stanley wants to remind us that "World War II didn't just happen to us." Well no, and Burns didn't suggest that it did. In fact, the prologue suggested just the opposite by reminding viewers that other nations sustained heavier losses and the destruction of their homeland. Burns is very up front about the fact that he is examining the American experience of the war. Why is this a problem? According to Stanley, it's "rarely a good idea" to look at the war from the view of just "one belligerent." Not only that, Burns commits this offense in a documentary with the audacity to have such a "definitive" title as "The War." In fact, "it's telling" that Burns focuses so heavily on America. But perhaps there's an explanation: read more »

After watching my first full Democratic debate last night, I have a couple of thoughts:

Hillary Clinton is going to be the nominee and probably the next president. As Jeffrey Toobin of CNN quipped last night, this debate was "Gladys Knight and the Pips." She was confident (perhaps a little too much at times), nuanced, moderate (with an eye toward the general election) and dare I say: presidential.

Obama did OK but this clearly is not a format that serves his conversational style well. Edwards is sinking--hey, did I mention my wife is Elizabeth? Biden strikes me as the grown-up in the room on foreign policy--even if he's like the uncle at the family reunion, ready to tell you what he really thinks after the third glass of wine. Dodd fades into the background. Gravel is angry. Kucinich is Kucinich. But then there's Bill Richardson... read more »

Expat has declared his support and official advocacy for the presidential campaign of New Mexico governor Bill Richardson. Expat, I hope you will receive this post in a goodnatured way, for it's an opportunity for you to make your case. (By the way, I have no problem with you posting and being an advocate, as long as you issue the disclaimer, which you did.) So why hasn't the Bill Richardson campaign gotten more traction? We have here a former ambassador, a former cabinet secretary, a governor of a Western state, and one who can appeal to the growing Latino population in the United States. Granted, he's gotten a little Joe-mentum in some polls, but he's certainly not treated as a top-tier candidate yet.
I think one answer to this question may be found in Richardson's recent debate and interview appearances. In a nutshell, uh, things haven't gone so well in the eyes of pundits who play an instrumental role in shaping perceptions about candidates. read more »

1) Joe Lieberman is now a man of extraordinary power in the Senate. It was a big mistake by the Democrats to go after him. Expect flowers and candy...

2) Presidential Aspirations Watch:
JOHN McCAIN: Strengthened. The possibility of losing the White House in addition to both houses of Congress will be too much for some McCain-hating Republicans to bear.

RUDY GIULIANI: Strengthened. See McCain comments. Look for Rudy to "rethink" partial birth abortion to become more palatable for the base. read more »