Excellent review and an interesting topic that might have made for a sober discussion of how we choose our leaders, the responsibilities owed us by those seeking office, and the importance of the media as a neutral force in the process. Unfortunately your apparent, and seemingly endless, obsession with Sarah Palin and the Republicans in general has already hopelessly spoiled that opportunity. I already know how the comments are going to read—restated yet mostly sincere expressions of partisanship and blind allegiance, peppered with huge amounts of rancor: all the things that this movie seems to warn us about.

. . . has already hopelessly spoiled that opportunity. I already know how the comments are going to read. . .

Hmm, didn't seem that peevish when I first wrote it. Does now, though.

Now she seems to know there are North Korea and South Korea, but...

During the campaign, they share their concern as Palin reveals a comprehensive lack of knowledge about current events.

And they cynically decided that a woman on the ticket would be a "game changer", but the many other more competent and qualified Republican women out there were all, for one reason or another, insufficiently ideologically pure for "the base".

So, how much sympathy should anyone feel for the breath-taking cynicism shown by the likes of Schmidt, Wallace and McCain himself? It's not unknown for a very fine, pragmatic calculus to come into play when selecting a running mate (Eisenhower and Nixon could barely stand each other, to take one example), but it seems to me everyone but Palin gets a liberal coat of whitewash none of them deserve.

Sounds like the filmmakers were extra careful to try to be fair. She was thrust into a most unusual situation and everybody knows what it feels like to be in over your head. It’s the kind of fairness that should will play well to everybody except the bottiest of the Palinbots who will not be able to entertain the notion that The Savior of the World ever was or ever could be in over her head.

Absolutely can't wait for Saturday.

This interview with Charlie Rose in 2007 was the first time I was introduced to her. Palin before Palin. I thought she was level headed and well spoken.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/8736

I read some snarky comments on that site that she didn't have The Answer to heath care. Understand, though, that she comes from the geographically largest state, but is far from the lower 48 and only has a population of 600,000. Tucson has more people. The issues she had as governor were far different than Napolitano's -- especially considering that Phoenix is now larger than Philadelphia.

I think Palin would have been a good Alaska, Montana, or Idaho governor, representative, or senator. But to pick an "exciting" running mate to balance Obama was McCain's biggest mistake. Joe Biden was selected for one reason -- he's boring. And for a presidential candidate, that's just what you want.

I am curious, why this side/blog location for what seems like a proper review of a film?

Ebert: One specific reason: I wanted to permit comments, and the software on the main site doesn't allow them.

I passingly glanced at the picture at the top of the article, and honestly thought that was a photo of McCain and Palin. It wasn't until I read the 2nd paragraph that I looked back and saw, oh hey, Harris and Moore.

In internet lingo, we call that a: "When you see it, you'll s*** bricks" moment.

The more I read about this movie, the more I'm looking forward to it. It's becoming clear that it's not the hit piece the right-wing noise machine is howling about.

Instead, it sounds like the high quality movie you'd expect to see from HBO Films.

Roger;
Your hate is showing. I gave up on un-biased reviews from you last year, this one, however, is a real howler. You take a (admiited) changed biographical sketch and treat it as truth. Your dislike for anything or anyone who represents middle America is astounding.

Roger,

Would you like to go back and review other made for television films, like Angels in America for example? I would love to hear your thoughts on that film.

Will

Your review seems like a balanced portrayal of Palin and the source of the feature's information could hardly be more believable. She seems like the equivalent of a "Hail Mary" pass in football that, with a little luck, could have worked for McCain.
The fact that Palin stayed "indecisive" about her decision to run in 2012 until the last moment (and only after benefiting economically from her obvious popularity) tells me she's perfectly conscious of her limitations for the job and the unlikelihood that she would have ever been elected. This doesn’t make her a monster though, just your typical politician.

Actually, Queen Elizabeth is the British head of state, but one doubts that Sarah Palin understood the distinction between chief executive and head of state in a parlimanetary system. Sometimes you can get one right by accident.

You never learn, do you, Roger?

All the other threads you've written on this, and still you want to wave a red rag at Randy Masters?

As I write this, it's 9:22 am, CST, and there are no comments posted as yet for this thread. Consequently, I have no way of knowing if Randy has had a chance to scan your review, and prepare what will be the first of many ringing replies.

For my own part, since I don't take HBO, I won't be able to see Game Change until the DVD comes out, and so cannot comment on its content. I have now seen three reviews just out today: your rave, a similar one in Newsweek, and Time's James Poniewozik's qualified pan.

Over on the other thread, Randy has already made his own opinion crystal clear, and he will no doubt continue to do so here.
His meme has been set in stone for some long while: it was all McCain's/the GOP regulars's/ the MSM's/ Tina Fey's/ (insert right-wing bogey of your choice)'s fault; Sarah Palin was and is the Perfect Candidate - The ONE, if you please - and only isn't running now because all those meanies mentioned above keep picking on her.

And I wouldn't dream of getting in his way.

So instead, allow me to reprise a bit of verse that I posted here some time ago (don't recall exactly where) which I find appropriate for our purposes here. It's the work of the late Ross H. Spencer, a writer of humorous detective novels, and first appeared in the 1981 The Radish River Caper:

Of all the great wonders God gave us to see
The greatest by far you will surely agree
Is the mystical magical Alibi Tree ...

Its succulent fruit tumbles sweet to the tooth
A tonic for age and a blessing for youth
It renders the eater immune to the truth ...

And rogue becomes saint as by Holy Decree
And wrong becomes right with God's firm guarantee
In the shade of the wonderful Alibi Tree ...

Here in hypocrisy man may abide
Here he self-justifies ... here he may hide
From the sins he has sinned and the lies he has lied ...

Oh Lord take the lion the lamb and the flea
Level the mountain and dry up the sea
But spare if You will Lord the Alibi Tree ...

Sarah Palin may also be the most accomplished cheerleader in American political history, and she knows it. Notice her wise reticence in refusing to dive into the risible GOP presidential fray. True influence resides behind superficial thrones anyway. Don't pity her excessively as she continues to wade confidently into the profitable morass of more book deals and inspirational speeches.

I could be mistaken, but I think that Queen Elizabeth is actually the head of state. She is not, however, the head of the government, that position belonging to the Prime Minister.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_state

Dear Mr. Ebert,
I am an Indian who lives in India and have only a cosmetic knowledge of American politics. After reading your entry I am curious; how was Mrs. Palin even elected the governor of Alaska? Doesn't that position require knowing 'about current events, world politics, history, geography'?

I wonder how bad she would have been had McCain won the election, then died in office after a year or two. The Cabinet and other advisors would have already been in place and she, by this account, was an accomplished puppet. She had also demonstrated some administrative abilities in Alaska. I think the country could survive it but, regardless, it's an interesting situation to contemplate. I look forward to the film.

Ebert: Dear Readers:

Many of you wrote comments pointing out that Queen Elizabeth is, in fact, the British head of state. She is not, however, head of government. That is the prime minister.

Rather than post all those comments, I will respond to them in this comment.

In my review, I have changed "state" to "government."

The film makes it clear that Gov. Palin thought it was the Queen that McCain would be dealing with on diplomatic matters. The dialogue in the film is correct.

This was an error on my part, and Palin's. I am richly aware of the irony.

Roger

"She knew an applause line that would please audiences, and that was enough for her." That line alone defines Ms. Palin perfectly.

The problem with this review, Roger, is that you're a liberal (a rare self-admitted lilberal, I'll give you that), so just about any percieved negative attention about Sarah Palin, you libs lap it up like Mother's Milk and beg for seconds.

Sarah Palin's biggest problem was (among other things) that they had an elite media that was SO rooting for Barack Obama that they focused in on Palin like a laser-beam with everything they had and then some. A self-made self-sufficient conservative woman who isn't a "victim" in any way and didn't ride the coattails of her husband is just not acceptable to the libs, especially to lib women (just ask Joy Behar).

So, Palin supposedly was stunningly uninformed about such things as current events and other important issues. Well, why wasn't Joe Biden held up to the same standard? Do we REALLY care about what publications that Palin reads? No, we don't, but it was an incredible "gotcha" to the libs as Palin being out of touch and uninformed. And one has to wonder why Katie Couric never made any deal (at all) about Joe Biden telling her "in 1929, FDR got on TV and told us all about the sacrifices we need to make for the Depression..." (or something along those words). Never mind that FDR wasn't president in 1929 and there was also no TV in 1929... but that was just "Joe being Joe". No one ever mocked Biden for being out of touch and being uninformed... did they? Or when he told a guy in a wheelchair to stand up and be recognized during a campaign event - Biden's gaffes are too numerous to list.

Or how about when Barack Obama said he'd been to all "57 states"? The point is that Obama and Biden made just as many gaffes (or more) as Palin did, but since the left was so jazzed about having the first "black" president (who is also just as white as I am, by the way), they overlooked it and just focused on Palin - god FORBID they be on the wrong side of history.

And now here comes a movie, played by actors of the Hollywood Left, who of course portray Palin as this not-ready-for-prime-time dunce... all the while ignoring the one that we actually elected instead.

Ebert: So okay, this is my review. Now read someone else's. That's how it works. Should I have written the review you would have written?

Sarah Palin is huge fan of Oreos. The cookie turns 100 today. Twinkies will be 82 this summer. I don't know if Sarah Palin likes Twinkies or not. Do you?

"The Last Momarch"

Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon was the mother of Queen Elizabeth 11. Wouldn't she be the last British momarch?

Be careful of the recollection of politicos when retelling the events of a campaign. The old saying goes that success has many fathers but failure is an orphan applies more to politics than anything else. The very second that it becomes clear a campaign is headed for defeat, all the strategiest, advisors and consultants have already picked someone else to shoulder the blame for their own part in the failure. These guys are no different.

Palin is clearly not an idiot. People have been exceedingly unfair to her and that is to their shame, not hers. She may not be Presidential matterial, but she clearly cares about this country and whether one agrees with her or not, that is worthy of at least respect.

If Schmidt comes across favorably at all in this, I suspect that the film itself is much too kind in its treatment of the characters. Schmidt is universally--and justifiably--regarded as one of the most mean-spirited, slimy, vile consultants in Californian politics. Even Rove doesn't justify the kind of bad reputation this guy has as a person.

It seems Sarah Palin and John McCain are getting a free ride on the coattails of talented actors giving empathetic performances. I won't see the movie until it airs on HBO. But I doubt it's going to make me forgive either McCain or Palin for what I see as a direct line to a misguided and exploited Tea Party, Rick Santorum, Rush Limbaugh, etc. The non-stop hatred they spew in the name of morals and righteousness is based on hypocrisy and stupidity. Limbaugh doesn't even know how contraceptive pills work. Just yesterday McCain questioned why the U.S. isn't engaged in an all out air attack on Syria. Sorry, these are not sympathetic figures.

Having read Game Change and wishing I had HBO almost enough to re-subscribe (although I won't), the following surprises me.
I've come to empathize with Palin as a person for the degree to which she was thrown in over her head. I know that feeling and its horrible.

But what I don't sympathize with is the degree to which she has nevertheless continued to pollute the national discussion with a degree of ignorance that tells me that she is now undeserving of any such compassion.

Roger,

I hope you answer this question. I know it does not purtain to the article you just wrote, but how come you have not been reviewing some of the bigger movies that have come out lately, but are reviewing a ton of small ones that no one sees? For instance, Ghost Rider 2, Wanderlust, Project X, The Lorax, Safe House. You didn't review any of those movies. Whats going on?

Ebert: They were in general not shown to the press, and I take pride in the attention I pay to indie and foreign films. I believe I review more titles than any other single critic. Did "Project X" require my attention?

As a Canadian I'm really looking forward to this film. We rarely get the kind of 'Wild West' politics that happen down south (maybe a good thing). Witness the current Republican nomination scramble as well as the McCain/Palin fiasco in 2008. No one could have dreamed up either of these scenarios in a million years. Say what you want about the GOP – they're sure as hell entertaining! Nothing on HBO is just a 'TV' movie anymore. Most HBO content can stand with anything showing on the big screen and this looks like no exception. Julianne Moore is a dead ringer for Palin and while Ed Harris seemed like an odd choice (too thin and intense), after watching the trailer I'm convinced. As for Woody Harrelson – well, he's just the icing on the cake. The only thing better would have been hiring Sarah Palin to play Tina Fey playing Sarah Palin!

Ah, Roger. You know that I respect you so much. And you'll also know that I am deeply disappointed and saddened by this review of a political hit piece called "Game Change".

You know that I a fan of Governor Palin and her accomplishments as a reformer and her visions for the country's future. I am also a fan of the truth, and I remain truly baffled how you do not see that this version of those events is not the truth. Baffled, and saddened.

I read a review on Big Hollywood last night that made some salient points. That the producers of the movie only chose the 10% of the Game Change book - the 10% about Palin - and left out the other half of the race from the Obama side. That the producers greenlighted this film back when it was a strong possibility that she would run. That they scheduled the release for the week of Super Tuesday so that they could do the most damage to her presidential run if she did well on Super Tuesday. This is a hit piece pure and simple. An in-kind contribution to the Obama campaign.

And it's a hit piece based on suspect sources: Steve Schmidt and Nicole Wallace. Two professional political operatives - GOP nonetheless - who served their candidates poorly, lost the election, and then needed someone to blame for their loss. Who has a financial incentive that this be the right version of those events? Those two, who want to work again on GOP campaigns.

Neither he nor Wallace (who confessed that after working with Palin she was unable to vote for McCain) has questioned its accuracy.

Of course they didn't! They are the source! Backstabbers. They should never work again on GOP campaigns again after this hit piece trashing their candidate. (GOP: hold a press conference today and make that statement.)

You have at least three clues that this is not the correct version of events, but lies from suspect and comprimised sources:

1. The Couric interview, as you noted.

You know that there is an alternate version of events, one found in Palin's "Going Rogue". (You know that, if you read the book. Did you read her book?) Palin points out that Nicole Wallace, who set up the Couric interviews for the campaign, used to work for Katie Couric. Why go on Couric's program and not more friendly media if they were worried about Palin? Because Wallace was much more worried about Couric succeeding in her new role at CBS than she was worried about the candidate that she was paid to manage. Wallace set up multiple interviews at multiple sites to give Couric the best chance to shine. Couric repeated the same questions over and over at multiple venues until Palin thought "Are you really asking me that question again?" and checked out. If you were still a beat reporter and you read that account, I would expect you to ask questions. How many times did Couric interview Palin? How many hours of raw footage did they have to edit? How many times did Couric ask the Supreme Court question or the what do you read question? What was Palin's answer the first time she was asked?

Nicole Wallace was promoting Katie Couric, not Sarah Palin. The fact that she did not even vote for her candidate tells you what kind of a weasel Nicole Wallace is. Yet you believer her as the source of this hit piece.

2. The lie about Palin not knowing there is a Prime Minister in England.

Surely by now you have seen video clips on conservative sites in advance of this movie showing Palin being inteviewed - before Schmidt's events - and discussing at length her respect for Prime Minister Maggie Thatcher and her role in working with Ronald Reagan to defeat the Soviet Union. You really think it is plausible that Palin doesn't understand the role of the Prime Minister? Really? Please.

Yet you prefer to believe Steve Schmidt's version because it fits your meme about Palin. It's absurd on its face.

3. From a review I read, I understand that the HBO version includes a scene with the famous lie about someone at a Palin rally yelling "Kill him!" about Obama. Yes? I know, and you should know, that the Secret Service investigated that incident and concluded that it did not happen. So, why would HBO include that lie in this movie after the Secret Service investigation disproved it? Why? Because this movie is not about truthful versions of events. It is a hit piece on Sarah Palin.

By now you should have also seen the "Game Change" video that SarahPac put out preemptively. It features video footage of Schmidt and Wallace themselves talking about how good a candidate Palin was. If they talked well about her in public and stabbed her in the back in this book and movie they are weasels and should never work on a campaign again.

The bottom line was this: Palin did well in the debate, brought crowds that McCain couldn't bring, and brought McCain more votes than he would have gotten on his own.

Roger, I am deeply troubled by this review. It makes me lose hope that we can ever have truthful accounts of events that we all watched just 3 short years ago. Put your reporter hat on! Ask questions about Schmidt and Wallace's account, and about the financial incentive that makes their account suspect. (they want to work again as operatives.) Question the conventional wisdom about the Couric interviews. Don't believe absurdities about Palin's knowledge of the Prime Minister's function at face value just because your side tells you this absurd tale.

I'm disappointed also in Tom Hanks for producing this hit piece, with obvious political motives and timing. I guess he doesn't need me consuming his product anymore.

You know, just like liberals are fed up with Rush this week, I'm fed up with the relentless Palin bashing. Tell the truthful story already. She's not even a candidate, and it continues. Although, the producers of this hit piece thought she might be, and wanted to take her down. Shameless.

In a sane world, McCain would be put on trial for bringing the country so dangerously close to disaster by picking such an incompetent for VP. With politicians like them, who needs Al Qaeda?

Despite all of Palins protestations about how she's represented in this movie, you must remember this: SHE was the one chiding Hillary Clinton when she complained about all of the "media scrutiny".

Palin famously said in an interview with Karen Breslau of Newsweek magazine in early March 2008: "...she shouldn't whine about tough media coverage...".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC-tOzXQOsk

Would you have the same sympathy if it was a man in the same situation? Whining about "needing / missing his children" - and being unable to function because of it?

Of course not. You'd say he was weak.

So why are Different Rules needed to gauge Palin? Are you aware she brought at least one child with her almost everywhere - to both public & private events - for years in Alaska?

Can you imagine John Boehner bringing a young child with him to the Congressional Floor to sit with him - each time they met? How about Barbara Boxer? And, I don't mean "once in a while" - I mean, to most EVERY EVENT. Every podium, on each and every stage.

Judge her as an EQUAL - don't "make allowances" for her. It diminishes all women when men do that for her.

Ebert: “There is a suggestion that he blames himself along with his staff for failing to vet Palin properly . . . .”

Exactly.

Ebert: “We're left with the conviction that Sarah Palin would have made a dangerously incompetent president of the United States. . . .”
Right again.

The choice of Palin as the McCain's V.P. candidate was cynical and outrageous. More, it was an insult to the voters and the entire nation.

That single decision to dismiss the intelligence of the American people disqualified McCain and anyone connected with the decision as incompetent to hold office.

When McCain chose Palin, the American electorate had one of two reactions:
1. Appalled
2. Applauded
That divide remains today, as Mitt Romney, slogging to the nomination, tries to persuade the party of the second group that he's not a secret member of the first.
Your review seemed fair and sympathetic to me (thus placing me in group one above).But I challenge anyone to make or to review a book or film about Sarah Palin and not get savaged by one side or the other.
IMO: she's the new Social Security -- the new third rail of American politics.

Roger, John McCain - who you respect - has some comments on "Game Change" and Mark Halperin, which are quoted over at Big Hollywood which are instructive:

Tinyurl.com/8225w4d

I imagine you are not a fan of Breitbart's site, with Nolte's articles about you, which were deplorable.

But, McCain's comments are what they are.

Dear Mr Ebert,
I am unfamiliar with American politics. Is the current vice president, who is one heartbeat away from the office of POTUS, qualified in preparation, temperament, personal ethical history, etc for the office? Has he had previous presidential aspirations squashed because of proven plagiarism, which would show severe lack of character? Is he a polished, confident speaker who does not curse in front of live microphones, which would indicate crass personality and lack of required saavy and media relations? While campaigning, did he ever wrongly describe the constitutional role of the Vice President, which should have disqualified him from consideration and cast severe doubts on the wisdom and instinct of the candidate who chose him?
I am most confident that the unbiased media would have throughly discussed these issues during the campaign if they were true.

Thank you

Ebert: I believe I learned all of those things through MSM.

I thought Hilary Clinton would have been a great vp. Biden? Meh.

Not as dangerous as Barack Obama

Thank you, Roger, for this very level and clearly written review.

I was raised in Chicago in the Boss Daley era. My father, Russ Stewart, was pretty much at the helm of the Sun Times and the Daily News when Marshall Field III was publisher. I learned at an early age that what is presented to 'the people' via the (controlled) media may be very far from the actual truth. Finding the 'true' Sarah Palin through the bog and mire of biased publicity isn't easy. I think this movie may be useful in that regard, and I appreciate your balanced yet honest review of the movie "Game Change."

I have followed the "Sarah Palin story" since '08. I am fascinated by how easily people can have their inner needs fulfilled by identifying with someone in a position of leadership who feels 'just like they do.' I have read that humans are not wired to be able to discern truth from falsehood - hence the great polarization that we see revealed in American Politics today.

Your words, because of your position and your clarity (which includes laughing at yourself) are vital to the ongoing process of raising public awareness. The gift of Palin, (actually just one amongst many gifts), is that we are all made more aware of the urgent need to know as much as possible about our Vice Presidential candidates. As they say, in a heartbeat (or lack thereof) they might be our President.

O.T. Personal P.S. to you, Roger. You might be amused by my father's pics of his career as MGM promotions man in the early 30's. MGM ran a train on wheels all across the United States ostensibly searching for new screen talent - and leading the crowds directly to the nearest Lowes Theater. www.movietraintour.com/

John McCain, on Mark Halperin - author of "Game Change":

"You know something, this guy - he might as well have been a paid member of the Obama election campaign, if you look at his coverage...he still is, he still is, I'm not making it up."

So, who are you going to believe. The two candidates themselves, who are honorable people who have stood for election and served their constituents? Or two political operatives who served their candidates poorly, lost, and then needed to blame someone else so they can get hired on another campaign ever again? Who?

Roger, surely you can see that the motives of Schmidt & Wallace are suspect? That they have a financial motive for selling their version this way? Put on that reporter cap!

Really, folks, if you're linking or tweeting positive things about this political hit piece and slander I ask you to reconsider.

Yup, because its in a movie it must be true. Or is a movie just the opinion of the filmaker?

Why is it that for the last 15 years the Hollywood left only makes movies about Conservative politicians? I believe I'm correct in this: Nixon, Reagan, Thatcher, now Palin. I'd like to see the way the left characterizes the abject failure of a presidency (and coward as a former president) that was Jimmy Carter. Or surely they could make a rip-roaring sex romp/soap opera out of the eight years of the Clintons. But no, the left must consider the left off-limits, eh, Roger? And as a lefty you fall right in line with glowing reviews.

Obviously not as smart as the one that is sitting in the White House. That thinks that there are 57 states. That can't put two sentences together without a prompter. However he is black and the nation had something to prove. That we were not a racist country! In proving that we handed the nation to an airhead that won because he was black. However the media did character assasination of Palin. And promoted Obama as brilliant. That in itself was a joke. Lucky for him that this nation is already 60% dumbed down. Otherwise the media wouldn't have been able to pull it off and get away with it.

This whole Palin is an idiot meme just doesn't sit right with me. I don't care who you are, winning a statewide election to governor means you have to have some brains. People who have no clue about current events or history or geography do not become governors. Yes I know it's "only" Alaska but still.

Can someone please explain to me how this movie can be factual when this is included? "There is a moment in "Game Change" when she's alone, and we see the hurt and sadness in her eyes when she realizes that people are finding her lacking. She's like a student who studied hard for the exam and failed anyway. The people love her. Alaska still loves her; that's why she's so urgent about the results of an Alaska poll on her popularity. Why are these media creatures being so cruel? Why is everyone picking on her expensive wardrobe? She didn't want the damn fancy clothes in the first place. Moore conveys these feelings with tenderness and subtlety. Her performance is not a barbed parody, but based on the actress' instinctive empathy with a character." Um, if she was alone, how did these "sources" know this is what went on? And if the authors of the book were never on Palin's detail, how do they know the "source" who provided this fantasy can be believed? Was the "source" a fly on the wall? LOL! I just love the left when they try to pass fantasy off as fact.

Alternate title for your article. "Best legs in presidential election history"

Funny thing is how dangerous Barack Obama is. In '08, no one knew who he was. His high school and college records have still not been released. No one who knew him in school has stepped forward. He did not finish his 1st term as a US senator before running for President and has been IN OVER HIS HEAD from the START. Talk about someone who doesn't know what he's doing.

He has made very similar gaffes as Palin and Biden have made, but no one makes a big deal out of it. Saying there were 57 states, mispronouncing corpsman, making a joke about special olympics. You can google Obama gaffes, but no one talks about them. He has even completely flubbed a speech and could not remember what to say, just like Rick Perry did, but did you know about that? This is the same guy who came up with "Jobs saved" as a way to deflect responsibility for unemployment numbers.

He has succeeded in doubling the debt, raising taxes, creating stagflation, placing health care mandates on individuals and religious institutions, starting a war without Congress, engaging in demagoguery, attacking successful business, ginning up class warfare creating Occupy Wall St., raising capital gains tax (to the highest in the world) and increasing the number of people on food stamps from an average of 28.2 million people to 46.2 million .... in 3 years.

Oh, but Palin would have been a disaster. Yep.

Go chew some caramels.....

Roger, you're so full of it.... For thirty years I respected you. What a waste.

Ebert voted for someone with less experience than Palin, so this article is really funny. Comments about qualifications on this thread by Obama supporters are also very funny. Obama has ZERO qualifications. Turned out great huh!

Rog, hate to break it to you, but this is only a movie and this:

"Sarah Palin lacked the preparation or temperament to be one heartbeat away from the presidency..."

Really? Seriously??? As opposed to Obama?

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAA. You have spent too much time in the dark, sir.

I'm sure the unemployed and those that can't afford to fill their tanks to get to work and when prices go up because of the cost of transport we'll can read your reviews to stave away reality.

Best to you.

"...Sarah Palin would have made a dangerously incompetent president of the United States."

So we got That Person instead, who is either dangerously incompetent or a traitor. I'd rather have had Sarah, who at least is on America's side.

Ebert: Our President is a traitor? Calm down.

I cant help but wonder why the media/left/hollywood claimed to be soooo afraid of Palin because they think she was "stupid" yet they said zilch about Joe Biden. The media didnt try to take Biden to task on much of anything. SNL couldve done dozens of skits on Biden, yet they chose Palin because she was a Conservative.

Palin was probably the most fact checked candidate of 2008. But I bet you could find just as many inaccuracies with Biden and plenty with Obama back then. But that wasnt the intention, was it?

Biden is a buffoon, and it was annoying to watch the media either ignore his comments or just laugh them off as "thats just Joe being Joe again...ha ha ha...good ole Joe"

As for the movie, hey...this is Hollywood. Liberal hollywood. I would never expect them to portray a conservative in a positive light. And how fitting of an actress to play Palin...for Hollywood anyways. One who resorts to flashing her fire crotch in movies to try and get people to watch it and one who hasnt hidden her hate for Palin, not unlike most of Hollywood and the media.

"What McCain needed, they became convinced, was a "game changer," a vice presidential candidate who would alter the landscape."

I think you mean, "they became convinced that they couldn't even find a token black guy."

Roger, two things the movie depicts have already been thoroughly debunked:

1. The shouting of 'Kill him!' when Bill Ayers name was mentioned at a rally - it never happened. The Secret Service investigated and concluded it did not occur. Dana Milbank claimed to have heard it, and by the time it reached popular consciousness it had morphed to having been supposedly yelled at the mention of Obama's name.

2. Palin not knowing England had a Prime Minister as the head of the government, and thinking the Queen was the head of the government. Totally false and debunked.

Roger Ebert can try and mainstream a shameful hit piece all he wants with words of reason and nuance, but at the end of the day trash is still trash. And when all of these so called "sources" come front and center and put their own reputations on the line we might consider taking some of this seriously. But until then, stop wasting our time.

Tom Hanks...this is what you have become?! Good grief man.

WIll a biography of our current president go into honest detail of his interesting life, as much as Ms. Palin has been inspected?

Of course not.

And that's why these movies attacking Republicans really aren't worth the plastic they use to package the DVDs.

I mean, the man has already written two autobiographies, there must be a story there!

But we hardly know him.

We know her...not sure why.

“The ‘Game Change’ trailer doesn’t reflect anything I recall.” — Jason Recher, Advisor to the McCain Campaign who was with Governor Palin during nearly every waking moment of the ‘08 election.

When and how did we know that the upcoming HBO film “Game Change” would be a total and complete hit job produced only with destroying Sarah Palin in mind? Well, we knew that the moment the film was announced back in March of 2011. For starters, the material upon which the film is based, the book “Game Change,” written by left-wing political journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, is itself a hit-job, and a poorly sourced one at that.

HBO claims that “Game Change, the book, was applauded by audiences and pundits on both ends of the political spectrum.” Really? If this is true, just like the writers of the book, HBO doesn’t name any of their sources to back it up. There are plenty of people on the record however, who did not applaud John Heilemann and Mark Halperin’s work!

Howard Kurtz wrote that the authors not identifying their sources was a “recurring weakness” in the book, and later added: The most cooperative sources may have gotten to spin the narrative their way, and no one – such as Steve Schmidt, the former McCain aide who has publicly criticized Palin – was pressed to be on the record.”

Don Campbell from USA Today called it: “A gossipy, behind-the-scenes presidential campaign book once again illustrates how the public is poorly served by some in the political press corps.”

There were people who were close to Palin during the 2008 campaign who took issue with Heilemann and Halperin’s work, however. During a conference call with reporters, Jason Recher, who worked for Sarah Palin during the 2008 campaign, said that the book did not reflect reality.

From the Associated Press: “Palin wasn’t the primary focus of the book, and he said he told screenwriter and co-executive producer Danny Strong that the book “absolutely, unequivocally” did not accurately reflect his time with the McCain campaign.

During the same conference call, Randy Scheunemann, who also worked as an adviser to Palin during the presidential campaign said: “If the book was very misleading, the movie’s going to be far worse.” Other current and former aides to Palin who attended the conference call, criticized Heilemann and Halperin “for writing about Palin when they weren’t physically there covering the things that were reported in the book.”

"Game Change," which is to air March 10, depicts Scheunemann explaining to Palin that Germany was the antagonist in both World Wars. (In the scene, a note-taking Palin, played by Julianne Moore, does not indicate whether she knew this or not.)

"The idea that there was at any point that Gov. Palin expressed any uncertainty as to who were the various sides in World War I or World War II ... or any other war is absolutely untrue," Scheunemann said. "She was incredibly intelligent. She asked very informed questions. She was very interested and she wanted to understand John McCain's view of foreign policy because she wanted to be the best possible vice presidential nominee."

Recher and McMarlin traveled with Palin during the 2008 campaign and have been at Palin’s side during nearly every public appearance she has made in the last year or so. Recher said he reviewed daily schedules and plane manifests from the campaign and concluded that neither author of “Game Change” was ever present, and that Schmidt was present on only five of 200 bus or plane trips taken by Palin during her two months of campaigning.

When the State of Alaska released over 24,000+ pages of emails, the mainstream media feeding frenzy was on to come up with the next “-gate” story.

Surely in that batch of emails, there had to be some buried bodies, corruption, bribery, embezzlement of tax-payer funds, a nice, salacious sex scandal, curse and threat-laden emails, or written displays of egregious bad judgment.

But reporters have found nothing of the sort.

Even the normally left-leaning CNN concluded from their reading of the stack that Sarah Palin was a hard-working ,transparent and effective public servant committed to her constituents best interests.

Liberal democrats will do anything to discredit a republican. They will stop at nothing to destroy a mother, a daughter, a husband, or a small handicapped child. That is how far liberal democrats will go. Sarah Palin makes me proud to be an American. She has been quite an inspiriation to many. She is a human being unlike Obama that wants to destroy our America. Tina Fey is a wannabe. She does not have what it takes to ever walk in Sarah's shoes. The media is evil when it protects all liberal democrats and trashes small republican children. The really sad part is that most democrats are not even aware of their corruption or either they do not care for human life. The liberal media will stand before us on national television and smile while doing everything it can to tear a republican to shreds. What did Trig ever do to a liberal democrat to have so much negative publicity? I'm sure the producer did not even ask Sarah Palin for her permission or her approval. What does that tell you? It tells you how liberals can manipulate your mind just like they did in 2008 to vote for Obama. If you vote for Obama you can kiss America goodbyue forever.

Ebert: Just read your first three sentences again. on't you feel they're...absurd?

McCain: Game Change Book 'Totally Untrue'

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/05/McCain%20Game%20Change%20Book%20Totally%20Untrue

Shortly after the campaign it was well known that Steve Schmidt hated Palin's guts--and that the feeling was reciprocated by Ms. Palin. And now we have a movie based on a book by Schmidt.
One would have to be a dunce to conclude that a book written about one's enemy will be entirely accurate.

Ms. Palin was not the worst Vice Presidential choice ever made by an American presidential candidate. Spiro T. Agnew comes to mind. Then George McGovern picked Senator Thomas Eagleton only to withdraw the pick--after first "standing behind Tom Eagleton 1000%". That's not a typo. McGovern said he backed Eagleton one thousand percent--before yanking the pick because Eagleton had received some treatment for mental illness.

I wasn't exactly blown away by the pick of Geraldine Ferraro by Walter Mondale. And the less said about John Kerry's selection of sex tape starring "Silky Pony" John Edwards the better.

And I've only gone back 45 years! Nope, she wasn't the worst pick. Maybe not a good pick, but at least run of the mine. And she deserves better treatment than this movie will give her.

I think you should read your article "The candidate as rabble-rouser" posted on October 10, 2008, Mr. Ebert.

http://tinyurl.com/85shmjv

I don't care what Palin was feeling or going through - She preached hate during the campaign. She could of been or could be a "loving" mother who was/is just over her head, but, none of it matters. When you spew the venom that she did/does, especially if its just to get applause, you're worthless and do not deserve empathy.

Your review of this project echo's what is troubling me about the media now and during the 2008 campaign: There is hardly no reporting of what people are actually doing and saying just acknowledgement of what people are supposedly feeling and thinking; Its more important what someone like Palin was feeling than what she was actually saying and doing.

"Reports" of the rally's Palin was attending mainly focused on how many people showed up and what their supposed reactions were to her speeches, not to what she was actually saying. That's why articles like yours that pointed out the words she was using and questioned the motives for using them were refreshing and necessary. This blog entry seems to suggest that you've fallen into the same safe haven that many others have where feelings and opinions outweigh facts and reality; Its more, or, just as important what a person is thinking or feeling than what is really happening.

The idea that the audience's reactions to what someone does matters more than what that person is actually doing needs to change. Sarah Palin could have been/be just as great an actress as Julianne Moore. The more important and troubling factor is that she makes the same excuses for herself that Moore does for her character. We should not do the same.

I'll agree that it's dangerous to fail to vet candidates. That's a lesson I wish the media would have picked up. At least the "incompetent" member of the GOP ticket was in the VP slot. The media's attacks on Palin may have been fair, but were made absurd by their utter lack of curiosity regarding the short, undistinguished, and potentially-radical past of the Democratic candidate. "Hope and Change" was really all they wanted America to hear. We were asked to infer Obama's competency based on his preacher's voice, his Harvard degree and the media's failure to say anything critical.

Roger Ebert is as much of a Palin hater as Maher, Behar, and all the rest. Him writing a review of a movie that bashes her is the epitome of bias. Why not let restuarant owners write the reviews of their own restuarants? How about letting parents of the contestants be the judges in a beauty contest? Sound ridiculous? To borrow from Palin....You Betcha.!

He can even write a sentence about her memorizing twenty five lines for her debate with Joe Biden (that many many people believe SHE won) with a straight face. Even if that were true, I think it would more likely demonstrate that a senior senator with 36 years of experience in government was dumb for letting someone so incompetent hold her own against him in a debate. Anyone who really saw the debate, (and you will never see clips of it because she was fantastic) knows that it would be impossible to debate for 90 minutes with a few memorized lines. They..and Ebert... know that no Palin hater would go back and look at it in its entirety. So, they play you all like fiddles.

Thank you Roger for your unbiased and fair review. I lost respect for you long ago over Palin....and you just keep giving me reasons that show me that I was right.

Sorry for addressing you as "Mr. Siskel" at the Undefeated showing, having just seen the big picture of Gene at the site, though admittedly not as much after reading the review.

The Governor's e-mails, those obtained legally and those not so much, have not been referenced for support of the ostensibly prevailing meme, and all interview footage has been selected without concomitant release in their entirety. Surely the contention of her inadequacy can be corroborated by something in twenty odd thousand correspondences that were crowd sourced by her detractors (although release of the latest batch was curiously ignored by the msm).

Carry on. She (and we) can handle it.

The root of the problem was that John McCain should have been president in 2000. The John McCain of 2008 was a tired old man, a ragged version of his younger self, scarred from too many battles, in particular with his own party. The John McCain of 2000 was still vibrant, wouldn't have need some for-show running mate, but that John McCain was robbed of what was rightfully his by Karl Rove and his gang of personality assassins.

As to Sarah Palin, it wasn't so much that she was out of her depth, but that she did everything she could to overshadow McCain. There have been no lack of dubious running mates in American history, let alone Vice Presidents, but Palin, perhaps encouraged by her popularity with the Republican base, began to act like she was the star of the show. If she was such a great actress, she should have known better than to so willfully try to upstage the lead.

Who can say whether she cost McCain the election or not. The tide was definitely against another Republican president. One thing we can be sure of, she probably did not help him, which was the essential point of going out on a limb. One can hardly imagine Lieberman screwing things up in the way she did.

Well, thank goodness we didn't wind up with such an unqualified Vice President! Instead we wound up a totally unqualified cypher of a President. ("Winning!") and a serial plagiarizer filling out the ticket. Whew! That was a close call!

Biden was a six-term senator with extensive Foreign Relations experience. Palin was a first-term governor of a state that, as noted above, has fewer people than Tucson, and used her office primarily to enrich her bank account and push social issues, including attempted book-banning.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is what they call a false equivalency.

What a pile of manure.The Republican operatives that worked on the campaign with Governor Palin daily have spoken and said it's all bunk. Wallace and Schmuck, did not spend that time with Palin. And she was vetted thoroughly, that is a fact that a number of other people were on the short list but failed whereas Palin after questioning passed with flying colors. She also after two years as Governor had almost 90% approval rating. She was Chairman of Alaska's Oil and Gas Commission made deals with heads of mega corporations. She Chaired the National Governors Ass, lead the meetings. These pile of lies by lying Dems, and lying liberal Republicans establishment types is a commentary on the state of America's soul. Truth has fallen in the streets, and most don't care. When we lose the ability to value truth as a first principle, the loss of freedom is not far behind.

Then reality began to sink in: Palin knew virtually nothing about current events, world politics, history, geography.
===================
Well, Obama still doesn't. So your point is?

Roger,

Thank you for answering my question. I read every single article you write and blog that you post. I am an avid film lover and watch tons of movies from small ones to big ones and I absolutely LOVE the fact that you review a lot of smaller movies. I was just curious as to why you had not reviewed some of the more popular ones out right now. I know some movies don't get shown to the press so you would have to go see them on your own, but I would be shocked if Wanderlust and Safe House were not screened for critics. Usually junk is not screened for critics.

Roger: I believe I review more titles than any other single critic. Did "Project X" require my attention?

Project X did NOT require attention. I was just curious, thats all. Was not trying to be bashful, but I think you might have taken it that way. I am your biggest fan and love the work you do. You and Richard Roeper are the only 2 critics I follow anymore. I was just hoping to get your opinion on Ghost Rider, because I know you love Nicholas Cage, and he is my favorite actor. And I was hoping for a review of Wanderlust as well because I have heard mixed things and I love Paul Rudd.

Have you seen the trailer to American Reunion? I remember when you and Richard reviewed American Wedding on your show, you guys both said you would love to see the characters grow old on screen, and I am wondering if you are excited after the trailer. It looks so good to me.

She's not an actress. That's demeaning.

She's a citizen legislator in the best American tradition. She started at the level of the PTA. She served her town as a mayor, gaining executive experience and leaving her town in a better growth position than she found it. She stood for election as Governor and won against as powerful a good ole boy network as you've ever seen. She took on her own party to reform a powerfully corrupt oil - government network in Alaska, as you saw in "The Undefeated". And she relinquished power when the actions of liberal activists paralyzed the functions of Alaska state government - an act of courage that few professional politicians have ever exhibited.

It's demeaning in the extreme to call her an actress. Julianne Moore, who has not stood for election and faced the voters, is the actress. She is a good one, but is not in the league of Sarah Palin.

Let's keep straight who is the actress.

Is calling an accomplished public servant an "actress" an act of misogyny? Will any feminists stand up to that? Yeah, that's going to happen.

Ebert: That's not me, that's a line in the movie.

Apparently however she did a great ob of delivering lines she didn't understand.

After reading the book, I was disappointed that the content of the HBO movie was strictly about the Republican side of the 2008 election. The book was not. If anything, it was more about the Obama-Clinton campaign. HBO probably decided they couldn't put everything in one movie, and they thought that the Palin content was more sellable. I disagree. On the Democratic side you have the first woman and the first black man in history running for president with a chance to win. For me, this is the more compelling storyline. But I will be watching non the less when it airs.

After all this time with the screaming incompetence in the unqualified Obama administration, not to mention the addition of Joe (The Brain-Damaged) Biden, his great expert on foreign affairs, you still think McCain/Palin would have been worse? It's simply stunning. Get your head out of your arse, Roger, your guys are destroying what's left of this country, and the majority of this country will pull them out of there kicking and screaming in November, bar massive election fraud.

Ah-ah-ah, Korea IS one country, hence the name. It has two political states.

I voted for Obama and for a good year or so now, I've found myself thinking a McCain/Palin victory sure as hell couldn't have been any worse than where we are now. Unemployment all over the place, broken promises, handing insurance companies forced paying customers, and nothing but proof that lobbyists and bribes are more in control than ever. I can at least imagine that McCain/Palin would've done something different. That might make for an interesting film.

Ebert: That's not me, that's a line in the movie.

It became you when you used it as the title of this blog post. You validated it. And it's wrong, and demeaning.

Apparently however she did a great ob of delivering lines she didn't understand.

Not apparently. Allegedly. Alleged by a pair with suspect motives.

I've seen her in person twice now. I've watched her talk fluidly for 45 minutes using her written notes and no teleprompter. She understands plenty.

Roger, your thoughts about my comments that the motives of the sources Schmidt and Wallace - professional operatives who backstabbed and didn't vote for their candidates - are suspect and not reliable? Why don't you see that? Why would you take them at face value?

"dangerously incompetent" sums it up nicely. Palin was and is a populist only. Lots of politicians are populists, that's not a sneer. One of our most successful Canadian politicians, Jean Chretien, was a shameless populist, but he wasn't only that.

Every base has it's trigger points, the words it wants to hear, the words that reinforce the things they think about themselves and those others. Palin was expert at knowing those words and striking chords. That's all. There was another documentary which followed her rise in Alaskan politics, where she confided to her opponent (as told by him on camera) that she wasn't sure it was at all important that she learn the specifics of any policy. People didn't want to hear that and few understood it anyway. So why bother? That's probably why she sounded so clueless to everyone that didn't already have their hands poised for applause whenever she appeared in public.

Of course the downside to this sort of populism is that the votes you attract can only come from the base. In other words, you are only converting the ones who would have voted for you anyway. They appeal of Palin falls off the political cliff as soon she's outside the tent. Palin is like some thrash metal band. The only reason you'd listen is because you LOVE their music. To everyone else it's just noise. So keep on rockin' Randy. Incidentally, I'm quite sure that any thrash metal band picked at random would have done an equally good job in the office of the vice-president.

McCain is a bit of a tragic figure to me. There is this overriding thought that comes to mind when I see him campaign. He really really wants to be president. Yeah sure, you have to want it to even get into the race. All of them want it. But McCain really really wants it. He wants it, almost desperately.

But at this point, is Sarah Palin relevant beyond the ease with which an (I'm guessing) entertaining and semi-fictionalized biopic can be assembled by the tell-alls and the Know-Nothings? Like Elvis C. sings, "Yesterday's news is tomorrow's fish-n-chips paper."

In three years we'll get the Santorum double-stack: an HBO version with Edward Norton in the title role and the direct-to-internet porn version no one (well, few) wants to see. Bubbly performance notwithstanding.

The woods are burning, boys, and we're worried about whistling in the elevator.

This review got me interested in looking into some of the McCain/Palin campaign. At the time, I didn't bother following it, because I'm on the Left. So either Clinton or Obama was fine by me.

Yikes! Four years later and the Republicans haven't learned a thing and are steadily losing all credibility. That's not a bad thing, considering. Still, a one party system is about two or three less than perhaps we ought to have.

Right now, I'm reading about how Palin said Paul Revere was going to warn the British. Wikipedia had to suspend the editing of the article because her supporters kept rewriting it.

Just like the events in this movie, you can't make this stuff up—no one would believe it.

Even Christians will tell you that if someone calls himself "A good Christian man" you should reach for your wallet and see if it's still there.

We already know the definition of "Fair and Balanced," along with its connotations. I was reading about the Paul Revere incident on The New York Times' site. They had a link to Conservapedia. It's howlingly funny. I highly recommend it to anyone in need of a good laugh.

The first thing one notices is that they find it necessary to call it "The trustworthy encyclopedia." Just checked: my wallet is still in my possession. It's described by them as "The conservative side of ideas and free speech, rather than liberal control and political correctness. . ."

I think I've finally cracked the Conservative's code: a Liberal is someone with High School knowledge of the world, whereas the Elite Liberals have genuine college-level knowledge. So, the next time anyone accuses me of being a supporter of the "elite liberal media," I'm going to politely accept the compliment and hope I'm worthy of that distinction.

"Get out of the race...Butthole!"

--Rick Santorum to Newt Gingrich

Just got back from the "Game Change" sneak in downtown Chicago. On the way home, I was wondering how long it would take for some Cons to gin up that this was some kind of hit piece on Palin when in fact, a) it was based on the book and b) much of the info came directly from McCain campaign insiders.

What's even funnier is that, as expected, these people haven't even seen the movie.

Also love how a man who's now had almost four years of top-level White House experience (and was a Constitutional scholar to begin with) can still be called "inexperienced" by some in this comment section. Especially when compared to the governor of Alaska, of all places. Who didn't even finish her term. It is to laugh. I suppose "Suspend the Campaign" McCain would have been a better choice in 2008? Seriously? Honorable guy, as the film shows, but the planet had had enough of the "shoot from the hip, go-it-alone" style from 2000-2008. Even now, the guy wants war with Iran, so spare me.

I do agree with a poster above that the 2000 McCain was way better than the 2008 version.

The film, I thought, was as balanced as they could have made it, considering the actual book was really about the epic struggle between Hillary and Obama and McCain/Palin didn't come in 'till 3/4 of the way through. It's no lib hit piece, though, it's history. Your girl Sarah just got out there and flopped, that's all.

As the movie showed, though, for every disastrous Couric interview, she picked herself up, got out there again and rocked it. It also portrayed the honor of McCain not wanting to go negative against Obama. So quit taking it so personal, Cons.

Remember, Breitbart keeled over raging against liberal strawmen so rein in your knee-jerk conservative hate and racism.

I thought Hilary Clinton would have been a great vp. Biden? Meh.

Meh, indeed. But isn't vp a meh job? Biden's disappearance has been a bit alarming. I'm glad to know he is still alive. I haven't heard anything from or about him in ages. Hillary on the other hand is a significant player in global politics, and is covered nearly as much as the president, and sometimes more often.

This is very interesting - certainly makes me look forward to seeing the film. Palin strikes me as a very good example of one of the three basic GOP candidate types - the Christian jihadist.

"Is calling an accomplished public servant an "actress" an act of misogyny? Will any feminists stand up to that? Yeah, that's going to happen."

Nice concern-troll there, Randy Masters. I'm a huge admirer of Margaret Thatcher, and at her considerable best her sense of political theater made Meryl Streep look like a dinner theater ham. I'd recommend John Campbell's even-handed biography of Thatcher (he was a consultant on the rather awful 'The Iron Lady' and I wish he'd taken a pass at Abi Morgan's incoherent hash of a screenplay), which recounts numerous occasions on which she was almost literally up all night working on key speeches.

The difference between Thatcher and Palin, is that The Iron Lady had been in Parliament for twenty years (in which she'd held senior Ministerial office) before becoming Prime Minister. And even her enemies would grant that Thatcher's political mind was like a steel trap.

Randy Masters:

"So, why did the producers of the movie "Game Change" choose to only use 10% of the book, the 10% that slanders Sarah Palin? Why not anything about the Obama / Hillary drama?"

Well, I guess if we were here talking about a two hour television movie about the Obama campaign you'd be screaming about HBO running election year propaganda for the Evil One. Please make me laugh and deny it.

"John McCain, on Mark Halperin - author of "Game Change":

"You know something, this guy - he might as well have been a paid member of the Obama election campaign, if you look at his coverage...he still is, he still is, I'm not making it up.""

Funny, I thought Senator McCain had never read the book and hasn't seen the film. If he had, I don't think any sane or literate person would think Halperin is now, or ever was, "a paid member of the Obama election campaign".

Four years later the republicans are selecting from a group that makes Palin seem enlightened and sensible yet some would still want to argue about 2008 than the sad group they have now.

Some days I think the entire GOP is one massive joke with Rush the head comedian. After four years of their non stop attempts to destroy the Obama presidency I wish the entire GOP would just go the fuck away.

Thank you for your reply. I was waiting for someone to ask back the very question with which you finished:-) You see, we do not have debates televised between the candidates (let's say for the position of the Prime Minister, that would be roughly equivalent to the stature of being elected the President of US) here. I will even hazard a guess so far as to say that there are no such debates held. The candidates do question each other's policies and respond back but that's all through newspapers.
This would hold good also for candidates vying for the post of Chief Minister of a state in India (again, roughly equivalent of the post of Governor of a state in US).
But if all the Chief Ministers of all the states in India are systematically quizzed 'about current events, world politics, history, geography' I am not sure how many will be able to answer satisfactorily.
It's all about individual campaigns and how much you can appeal to the 'heartland' states of India; much less about current events and world politics. Majority of average voters here are people who, at the end of the day, would be more than anything else, concerned about earning next day's wages so that they can feed their family.
I had a long-standing question about US politics, though. Maybe one of the contributors here will please answer. I see that the US Presidents do not run for office for more than two consecutive terms. Is there something that prevents them from running for three terms or, they can run again but not consecutively?

randy,

you seem very certain about the truth regarding palin's campaign involvement. i'm curious about how much time you spent on the mccain/palin bus. how much time you spent backstage before and after debates and appearances. how many times you briefed ms. palin prior to and debriefed her after appearances and interviews. how many times you spoke with her directly. i'm curious about all that.

or is it more likely that you got your information from a book written, sort of written, by palin? therefore, you can no more claim to know the truth from her book than anyone else can from the book of schmidt and wallace. you are delivering as much credibility - or lack of - as you want to take away from those you accuse of lying.
_________________________________

for those asking why there was nothing in the movie about hillary or obama, really? perhaps because the movie is not about hillary or obama? how about that?
_________________________________

people people, please try to focus on the fact that roger is reviewing a movie. a movie. it's not his personal commentary about palin - although we know that his opinions are not different from the book.
_________________________________

if two sides disagree, and one side has to be lying, one way to differentiate is to ask two questions:

1. who has more to gain by lying and
B. who has more to lose by lying?

for palin, she has the cliché of everything to lose and nothing to gain. her gain would be to continue the commentary she already provides for the "fair and balanced" fox news. and she has all that to lose, but not really because fox news knows that she brings viewers regardless.

for schmidt and wallace, they lose no matter what. whether you believe their story or not, they have already lost. sure, they got paid, but who will ever hire them again? we know that they're capable of a tell-all book/movie, so nobody is going to trust them. if anything, they've brought negative attention to themselves by showing how they are accomplished at tattle-taling. that's why i believe their story. they're admitting to mistakes that we wouldn't have known about unless they were willing to stand up and admit to them.

So, I'm flipping through all the news coverage of Super Tuesday and who do I see on my screen? Our sainted Game Change source, Steve Schmidt. He was opining on MSNBC with Rachel Maddow, Lawrenc O'Donnell, Chris Matthews, and Al Sharpton. He seemed pretty comfortable with that crowd.

Makes sense. He finds Palin batshit crazy, but is fine on a set with socialist flame thrower O'Donnell. Right.

Oh well, he's earned his insider street cred by trashing Sarah Palin. Some RINO establishment type who wants to be loved by left media will hire him again to run a campaign.

Pathetic.

Thank God Obama/Biden were elected. Obama certainly could be doing more (He should have broken up the banks when he had the chance), but McCain/Pailn would have been so much worse.

Sounds like you are doing your best to be balanced, and review the film on its merits. Be careful, your liberal friends may try to revoke your membership... To my conservative colleagues, give Roger some credit here. BTW I am from AK. You have the essence right - she was just overwhelmed by being thrust onto the national stage. She was not ready. AK politics is local and personal and relatively polite. She had only been governor for half a term. She should have passed on the offer.

Hello Roger, I wanted to expand on Nelson's question about some recent films you haven't reviewed... while I haven't seen any of the titles you mentioned in your reply, I do think you would enjoy seeing "The Secret World of Arrietty", which was made by Studio Ghibli, the same studio behind "Sprited Away" and "Ponyo" (two films you gave four-star reviews to). "Arrietty" is currently polling 94% on Rotten Tomatoes. I saw it and liked it quite a bit. Consider it if/when you have free time for a new movie. Thanks!

Randy, did you think about that before you posted it? You're accusing the production of being biased and full of backstabbers out to get Palin and then claim that Palin's book contains the true events. But wouldn't Palin's own writing be the most skewed version of all?

Let's play a hypothetical scenario here. If a movie came out that portrayed Palin in a glowing light, but gave her credit for things you knew were false, would you be calling it out for being inaccurate or would you embrace it, because you are, as you put it, a fan of her. Would you be capable of giving an objective opinion in such a scenario or would your opinion of Sarah Palin affect that?

As a follow-up, if the Republicans accused Obama of things that weren't true, would you object? Or would you support it, because it furthers the Republican goals you agree with?

You see, your mistake is in believing that in the world of politics there actually is such a thing as a completely fair and balanced objective viewpoint of anything. It's one of the great Catch-22s that if you're informed enough to have an opinion on political matters, odds are your opinion is skewed one way or the other.

To give another example, would I be wrong to accuse the Republicans of being morons for complaining about Obama's spending and then letting Newt Gingrich float the idea of spending untold gobs of money on moon bases?

Now I admit outright that my own views are very far to the liberal side, which may mean to you that I'm biased. And I am. I freely admit that I'm biased towards my own political views.

That's the beauty of my worldview. It's what makes me laugh at all the people who talk about how "liberal democrats will do anything to tarnish a republican" as if the republicans weren't exactly the same, except when they do it, it's somehow "exposing the truth" or "protecting the American way" or some other self-justified bullshit to help them sleep at night.

Do democrats really play dirty and use half-truths and slander? I'd say yes. Do republicans do the same? Absolutely. If you think your side plays by the rules, you're wrong.

From the comments above, one thing is crystal clear: There couldn't be a more uptight group of people than the Palinistas. Your vehement protests are so over the top, so comical, and so absurd, that the rest of us just want to get our popcorn and watch you prima donnas have another collective (i.e., socialistic) hissy fit.

Do you not realize that pumping oxygen into a fire only makes the fire grow bigger?

If you can't stand the heat, fellas, get out of the kitchen. It worked for Sister Sarah. It's time you follow her lead.

Please - everyone - stop believing the publicity myths about Sarah Palin, all the 'Hockey Mom' hype from 2008. It is mostly very well constructed smoke and mirrors. Take a look at the person behind the curtain - the real person behind the myth. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. Talk to people in Alaska, people who were there. Her ratings were never really as high as claimed, and they are incredibly low now. Oh yes, people are paid big bucks to keep up the hype. It is mostly very well constructed Ballyhoo.

One example, re Palin's "vast experience as Governor" (for what, half a term?). Todd Palin had a permanent desk right in the Governor's office, sat in on high level meetings, made many of the decisions coming out of that office, was copied on many of Goveror Palin's office e-mails (even though he was only a private citizen). In other words, he and others did the thinking for her. Yes she is extremely charismatic, very very sly and clever, but not intellectually curious enough or concerned enough to want the job of Governor. Why do you suppose there were once lapel buttons worn by many in Juneau and elsewhere stating: "Where's Sarah?"

DO THE RESEARCH - Talk to Alaskans from Wasilla and Anchorage - those that are not afraid to speak their minds, those who do not have a job to protect by staying silent.

It is troubling that Americans seem to be voting for 'celebrity' rather than 'competency.' Please think about that, and please vote with care.

Roger, following your blog from London, I can only admire your determination to write a fair and balanced review of this potentially controversial film. I'm no expert on US politics, but it doesn't take much insight to recognise that some of your readers are determined to read your words through the prism of partisan bias, no matter what the subject. I don't know how you retain your faith in the American political process, but I'm very glad you do: if people like you were to lower your standards of integrity and fairness to those of some of your readers, it would be a sad day indeed for American politics. I only wish we had public commentators of a similar standing here in Britain.

Sarah "The GOP couldn't find a token black guy" Palin, along with others are all just actors performing soulless acts for money, which is why, for instance, Christine O'Donnell couldn't get elected, because she makes it look just like a job most of all..."Well, um....actually...see [looks down at her paper]...Oh, right,...you're a doodie head."

That's why Sarah Palin is for Newt Gingrich, because he is the most polarizing, or he is the most "you're a doodie head" out of all the candidates (although, I do think he has the most substance of the GOP, but that is not why Sarah is promoting him).

So, basically, I think the reason Sarah Palin might be making all these gaffs or whatever is because she is selling her soul and is not very good at it (isn't that what people call a good thing?), or basically, knows she is selling her soul, which makes one nervous. So, that is why she just stays on the "safe" shows to do interviews and is a paid Fox News contributor, because they want to make the soul-selling a lot easier; just say a few lines scripted and we'll try to make it easy for you and then get paid a million dollars. Fox's business, as we know, is selling crazy and making it appear mainstream; so it's a lot "safer" for the soul when it appears to all just be mainstream conservatism and not what it really is; whenever she gets nervous, Hannity can just go to playing the good cop (like Bill "Good Cop" O'Reilly) and say "hey, this is all just for conservatism...come back to me Sarah...get out of the dark side....yes, come back to Fox,...we make the dark look good."

I don't like to spoon-feed what i say, but there was a subtext underneath my last comment, which was that perhaps Sarah Palin puts herself alongside really polarizing figures (Gingrich) so that she doesn't have to do it herself, just as she didn't have to finish being Governor of Alaska herself either. She can just stand next to them and hold up a sign that says "I'm for polarizing." Next she's hoping to get her own sit-com modeled after her "political career" called "I'm for Polarizing" so then she can just collect checks for the Actress playing her as polarizing. (Oops, I just came up with another million dollar idea).

Anyway, that was the subtext of my last comment...but I thought that this time I would make an exception and spoon-feed it for ya.

Why is it that the people who deride the "media" for its failure to support Palin and McCain forget about Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, who clearly supported them? Are they any less of a part of the "media"? Certainly their support counts for something, even if it does make Palin and McCain look less like the victims of the "liberal media" and more like the candidates who shot themselves in the foot. Because by no means were Rush, Fox News, and their cohorts in the major media outlets silent during the campaign. And yes, we (the media watching/listening public -- liberal and otherwise) actually did hear them comment on the mistakes that were, and have been, made by the Obama campaign then, and the Obama administration now. So please, let's end this continued assertion that all "media" is liberal. It just isn't true.

Yes, Sarah Palin is very pretty, energetic, a fine parent, and charismatic. So is my neighbor, but I'd never vote for her as Vice-President of the United States.

Whenever a candidate for high office STARTS his/her qualifications with the words "I'm a Christian..." or "I'm a mom...", I'm scared to death. By those standards, half of my coworkers are qualified to run the country, and they can't.

The strategy of the McCain camp was obvious: No way was this Alaska governor of two years, after mayoring a town of 7,000 (including polar bears) qualified for any national office, but she just might win them the election on electricity alone.

Then, the program goes, just pray nothing happens to McCain and puts her in the Oval Office.

The strategists were willing to risk putting America into great peril just to win an election. Didn't they learn anything from what Dan Quayle did to the George H. W. Bush re-election campaign? I could have voted for Bush, but not with that dim bulb one heartbeat away.

Likewise with John McCain, a man whom I respect tremendously, and thought would have made a fine president. But, with Caribou Barbie holding the stethoscope, no way would I have cast my vote for that ticket, no matter how devoted a mommy she is to Trig, Track, Truck, Trick, Tripp, Trooper, Bristol, Pistol, Whistle, Missile, Willow, Brillow, Pillow, Chill-O, Piper, Wiper, Sniper, Diaper, DeKuyper and Glen Rice Jr.

djfone@msn.com

Waiting to see this movie Roger. Though I am a republican I do agree that Palin was in over her head in those early days. She was thrust into something way before she had time to learn she was only a governor for a short time at that point. I certainly don't hate her like a lot of the poster here and I think she has something to offer in the future. I think the media has damaged her a bit to much for her to make a run for president but she would probably make a good senator or a cabinet adviser one day.

O.T. I had a work site in Union Pier, MI that I went to several times in the last 3 years Roger and there is a small market on Red Arrow Highway called Milda's that I would stop at and get their soup and sandwiches. The cashier told me you used to go there every now and then. I though he was joking because I used to see a guy walk in there that looked like he could be a relative of yours. This same Roger look alike customer used to ask me what kind of work I was doing(I was doing environmental remediation of the groundwater and soil). I talked to this stranger a few times.This look alike wasn't you but he did strongly resemble you and he may have been a few years younger.
I know you are familiar with red arrow highway so I was wondering two things : Did you used to frequent Milda's in the past? Could the look alike be your relative or just a guy with a strong resemblance to you?
I'm thinking the cashier was pulling my leg but you never know.

Julianne Moore is incredible in her transformation. The McCain campaign seems heartbreaking, the corruption of a well-meaning man.

Roger, did you have any idea what kind of shitstorm you would rile up by writing something less than sycophantic about Palin? I thought it was quite fair, but anything less than 100% praise will rile many conservatives up. If you ever want a good laugh go to the Conservatives4Palin site.

Looking at some of this discussion got me thinking, Roger: It would be quite interesting if all of your reviews came with an open forum that would allow your readers to comment on your opinions and express their own ideas about each film for which you provide a write-up. So many films for which you've written additional thoughts on your blog has sparked many interesting perspectives. Next time you do an overhaul on your website, I for one wish you would consider this feature. I suspect it would ultimately provide an outlet for people to think through their own ideas and opinions about films that spoke to them in one way or another, and it would probably lead to additional discussions where readers would come away with some well-articulated recommendations. Just an idea.

Ebert: I agree. My entire web site is undergoing a redesign, and in its new form will accept comments under reviews. That's why I ran "Game Change" as a blog entry. Believe it or not, the current main site software can't accept software!

Wow, this is my first time reading the comments on your blog and I have to say I am very surprised by the amount of hardcore Conservative commentators. Especially when your political views have been well known for quite a while now. I'm not saying that it is a bad thing (Hooray for diverse opinions!), but it is quite surprising.

Without having seen the film yet, my own thoughts on Palin largely coincide with yours. Barring a truly weak field of opponents (such as this year's Republican primary) I don't think she has what's necessary to succeed as a Presidential candidate. She often reveals a startling lack of knowledge on certain subjects and has polarized too much of the American public outside of the far right.

Palin does however have an extraordinary ability to market herself to a specific target audience, and no one can claim that she is a failure excluding any presidential aspirations. She's set for life financially and will always have the public and media obsessing over her. My biggest gripe with her is that she has somewhat contributed to the Republican Party's extreme shift to the right, but she is hardly the only or even biggest factor in that regard.

By the way Roger, have you ever watched the television show The Wire? As a big fan of The Interrupters, Traffic, and crime movies, I think you would greatly enjoy it.

Ebert: This review was sure to draw Palin supporters. What I would like to point out, with considerable pride, is that the comments on both sides of the fence are generally literate and effectively written. I vet everything, and have only had to kill three comments for the usual reasons (obscenity, libel, etc). Compared to many comment sections on the web, this blog is the Encyclopedia Britannica.

You're taking an HBO film as factual?

Watching the vice president debate in 2008, and pondering it afterwards, it was obvious Palin memorized a bunch of answers and rattled them off regardless of what question she was asked. So the movie must be right about that.

I still admire Sarah Palin. I think if she ran for the Senate and served a term or two, headed up some committee, she could be ready for presidential politics again (maybe in a decade+).

Some of the savagery toward her in the media and on the Left was completely unwarranted (Katie Couric not included--Katie asked some softball questions and Palin just couldn't answer them).

Great essay, but I'm bothered by one thing -- Roger's continual use of the past tense: "Palin was," "she had," "she might have," as if the Palin saga is ancient history.

Now Palin's hinting that she might yet get into the Republican race. In other words, we probably haven't heard the last of her ....

Thank you for the review of "Saving Face." It's at the bottom of several new reviews and might be missed.
I think it's time for Newt to drop out of the race. I think Republican voters should be allowed to choose their nominee, and they need to choose between Mitt and Rick Santorum. If all of Newt's votes went to one of them, it would affect who wins.
Of course, Newt wants to win in Georgia next week, and maybe he should have that trophy. But then, time to say good-bye.
I'm looking forward to "John Carter." Princess Leia didn't appear in her slave bikini until the third movie, so yes, I'm voting for a sequel. Or two. And use the title "Princess of Mars" while you're at it. Another Disney movie about a Princess? Why not?
I find Sarah Palin boring. Thanks to SNL, her political career is over.

Based on the hysteria, you'd think someone just burned a Koran.

From Randy Newman's "Rednecks": "Last night I saw Lester Maddox on a TV show/With some smart-ass New York Jew/And the Jew laughed at Lester Maddox/And the audience laughed at Lester Maddox too/Well he may be a fool but he's our fool/If they think they're better than him they're wrong/So I went to the park and took some paper along/And that's where I made this song." Newman, I think, is writing about the same kind of democrat that Phil Ochs rails against in "Love Me, I'm a Liberal". He's not endorsing Maddox, but at the same time, he's lambasting people for their feelings of superiority over the then-Alabama governor. Newman sums up for me my own complicated feelings about Sarah Palin. Like Maddox, I think she's dangerous for our country, and yet, I can't abide by this categorical imperative to ridicule her. Not you. But other people.

When will they make the film about Barack Obama's campaign in 2008, about how he was not vetted and how the mainstream media helped his flailing candidacy limp across the finish line? Now that's a really compelling story. All I've seen are documentaries celebrating his historic win. But what about the stuff that I saw and read and felt and knew? That is feature-film material. Guess it'll be up to me.

I recently watched 'Margin Call'. Think it would be really interesting if you opened that review up for comments:-)

I should have loved Barack Obama for president. But I have the very same thing that dear Christopher Hitchens had from a young age: an intolerance for being snookered by anyone with authority or influence. In the case of Mr. Obama, I sensed an overwhelming stench of pro-Obama bias in the mainstream media that I devoured in copious quantities in those days, and it ruined me for his candidacy.

Meanwhile, reporters were flying in droves to Wasilla, Alaska, and have since scoured emails and records and witness accounts, to try to find anything controversial about Sarah Palin. Imagine their surprise when they found nothing particularly unsavory, only that she was rather unprepared for being leader of the free world should John McCain pull a William Henry Harrison and die a month into office. (And yet, we must wonder, what if she had been running for president/vice president an additional year and a half, as the equally underqualified Barack Obama had been doing.) This had the effect of pulling me quite immediately toward her candidacy.

I would say that in the years since 2008 Mrs. Palin has become as aware of the major issues and articulate in defending controversial views as we could expect of any major public figure or leading thinker. Ha ha ... no, seriously. However, in recent months I have been growing quite disappointed with her support of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum and her clearly advertising herself as an option at a brokered convention in Tampa.

But I am not perfect either. (That is, I think, what we do when we find a target for ceaseless derision. We are trying to make ourselves feel perfect, inculpable, safe, in comparison.) For just as folks who dislike and disrespect Sarah Palin are stuck like glue to feelings they had in 2008 that may no longer be relevant, I continue to be thunderstruck with an absurd notion. Imagine, Roger: A man with just as limited a resume for the biggest job in the world, and whose philosophical makeup and worldview were certainly still in flux in the months leading up to his run, was assumed to be destined for the presidency, while a woman who had clearly accomplished great things as governor of a vast territory but had had little regard for pressing national and international issues - and yet, according to the ballot I saw in Indiana, was only the understudy for the top job - was mocked and reviled. It exposed a very ugly picture of people that I have a hard time shaking from my view. I just can't shake it.

I want to love the president, embrace his liberal ideals, move into the twenty-first century as Chris Matthews says I must, and yet I just can't shake that vision of the ugliness that much of it - from my point of view, at least - has been built on.

You want to see the best movie about a political campaign--at least the best doc? Try "Anytown, USA," about a bitter race to the mayor's office of Bogota (rhymes with "vigoda"), NJ. Two of the three candidates are blind; once more, you can't make up this stuff: http://www.hulu.com/watch/107095/anytown-usa

Hi Roger.

Just wondering if any of the comments so far have made you rethink your acceptance of the veracity of Schmidt and Wallace's sourcing for this movie? Or of the producers' motives and timing of this film as a hit piece on Sarah Palin?

Ebert: I'm not the one who hired them for the campaign. I believe the film's portrait of Palin is fair enough, based on what we saw of her. It was made with a certain sympathy for a women who was playing out of her league. Have you noticed McCain palling around with her a lot recently?

Poor thing. She was not ready for prime time. If she hadn't been so ruefully thrust upon the American people by a desperate, outmatched party in an attempt to grab the identity politic vote, she might have come across as lovably homespun instead of evil incarnate. The wacko right responses to this post are truly scary in their denial. I hope for all of our sakes, there aren't enough of them to win in November.

*Disclaimer: I also think Palin is extremely pretty, and hope one day to be able to see her naked.

i hate getting - or allowing myself - leaping into another debate about a worthless woman who has done nothing to deserve so much time and attention and money.

possible i just removed myself from volume P of the encyclopedia brittanica

Dear Roger Ebert: Game Change is Nothing More Than a Sick Liberal Fantasy and Julianne Moore isn’t Sarah Palin

http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/dear-roger-ebert-game-change-is-nothing-more-than-a-sick-liberal-fantasy-and-julianne-moore-isnt-sarah-palin/

Ebert: You linked to a bad page. I corrected it for you. Here's the bit.ly link:

http://bit.ly/ADQusw

I read this thread last night and found it fascinating that, without exception, respondents either acclaimed this film as a triumphant affirmation of Palin's incompetence, or condemned it as the most thinly veiled and unfair political hatchet job in the history of cinema. Hundreds of posts and not one allowed for the possibility that the truth may lie somewhere between these extremes.

It occurs to me that this thread is not only a perfect microcosm of how intractable we've become in our beliefs, but that the blame for this black-or-white mindset is squarely on us. For years I've assumed that our growing inability to have a civil discourse on political matters was created by a thoroughly partisan Congress and the complete lack of objectivity in our most popular media outlets. (If a freshly arrived foreigner were to spend one hour each watching Fox News and CSNBC, they'd have a hard time beliving the commentators were from the same nation, much less discussing the same issues.) But I had it exactly wrong. The political system and media landscape are only a reflection of us.

And I suspect that you selected this film for your blog instead of the regular site precisely to demonstrate this point.

You might consider writing all your future posts on politics and politicians as though they were a movie review.

Wait? Tom Hanks produced two movies for the Obama campaign? Game Change and a Obama documentary?

I guess he doesn't need my business for his product anymore. And to think I defended him on Larry Crowne.

Another take on why the producers of Game Change would make the whole movie on Palin and leave out the Obama / Clinton part.

Because she's a phenomenal ratings draw.

Even those of you who loather her obsess over her. Witness the MSM almost crashing chasing her bus down the road when she wasn't even a candidate.

They can make a movie trashing Mitt or Rick or Newt next time, and it won't have nearly the ratings draw of this hit piece on Sarah Palin. The producers want to make money, and trashing her is just a twofer.

NEWS ALERT

Herman Cain endorses Joe the Plumber for Congress. Joe champions 9-9-9. I am getting visions of a 2016 Herminator/Plumbinator ticket. Only in America.

After reading the comments here now I can see why President Bush was reelected, people just can't admit they made a mistake. Now I have a confession to make, I vote for Rod Blagojevich, but only once.

Full disclosure: I'm Canadian. But reading the comment section in this and a few other blogs leaves me depressed. The ignorance and rage coming from the right wing of the political spectrum is shocking.

And I don't even know what you would do about it. It's seemingly immune to reason and facts.

I think we are in a unique spot in history, where the availability and inundation by 'facts', the blogosphere, and the 24hr news cycle has outpaced the publics collective ability to critically sift through it.

Everyone has their own historical spin and cherry picked data to launch into the public discourse, and while some are well thought through and worth hearing, most are vitriolic revisions of some other pundit's manufactured rage and victimhood.

Mr. Ebert, thanks for challenging yourself, especially in trying to understand a subtext that people will parse through their own filter anyway. Stay awesome!! Have a great weekend coming up!

Steve D @ March 8, 1:01 PM:

BRAVO! You wrote: "The political system and media landscape are only a reflection of us." I believe that you have nailed it. That makes US responsible, for our thoughts and outlook, for our words and the atmosphere we create here for others.

I was going to write to Roger to tell him that I am so glad that I have found this site. I second your words Roger: "Compared to many comment sections on the web, this blog is the Encyclopedia Britannica."

People who are drawn to return time after time to a certain blog or journal form a family of sorts. We all get to know each other, or at least the part of each of us that we are willing to reveal. I am particularly pleased, Roger, that you will 'kill' obscene or vile comments. That means I can come here and feel safe from the painful reminder of where some people's heads and hearts are at. In any healthy family gathering there are pros and cons, maybe a young rebel, probably a crazy old aunt (that could be me), but the glue that binds is a mutual respect. Then the exchange, while sometimes spicy ad sometimes sad, deepens everyone's understanding. We are, after all, as Steve D. says, talking about US.

Roger, thank you for this space to express and this opportunity for us to all see each other more clearly.

Sherry Stewart
aka Canadian Country Girl

Whoa!
I just saw that two people can post under the same name.
I guess the answer is to use a totally unique name, if that's possible.

People are taking all this way too seriously. It's simple; they wanted a black guy...they didn't have a black guy. Someone in the campaign saw Palin on Glenn Beck (who discovered her) and saw they if they didn't have a black guy, they could get a woman.

John McCain used her; that's why he's not hanging around with her and such. Maybe he doesn't think much of her, maybe he thinks more of her than you think, but that has nothing to do with anything, because it's all just very superficial surfaces.

All the depth people are looking for and not finding is not because Palin is lacking, it's because it's all a game of surfaces and they, the campaign, were trying to play the American public as fools by being extremely simple about appearances and surfaces and such that it backfired on them.

Unfortunately, they are correct that that is the right game to play to win. Also, unfortunate, for them, is that they played with too big of an ego, just expecting to win for basically just showing up.

All these people making personal attacks on Palin are just giving her more ammo by playing on the field of just surfaces and stating the obvious, because the obvious itself is just surfaces as well. Saying Palin is incompetent and such is exactly what Palin wanted to portray herself to be, because their plan was "just show up and you'll win...with that punam."

So, I don't know think it's a matter of incompetence, but a lack of care for being competent.

By calling her incompetent you are making her look more caring about competence than she is, as if she was caring about being competent in the first place.

See how things backfire?

With Palin a lack of care backfired into people thinking she can't do the job...and with you're saying she can't do the job it is backfiring because you are putting her up there in the discussion of competence...which she could use to possibly get the job.

If she does decide to run she could use that against you.

She could say "Oh, I haven't even been TRYING to do that much and look what I've done...and I'll do a lot more as President...I'll do this and do that."....and it's partly true, and she could turn her not CARING into looking like she's been accomplishing things without TRYING.

She could turn one thing and turn it into something else because you are putting her into the conversation of competence.

Roger, I have a question for you.

Why do we focus on Sarah Palin's preparedness (or lack thereof) for the vice presidency?

Another question:

Did we do that with Sargent Shriver or John Edwards?

A third question:

Would you say that she is prepared for high office now?

You can't take the truth!!!!!

Visual evidence that Sarah Palin has unleashed an army of underground warriors to battle the legion of alien drones currently infestating our car washes.

Sarah Palin Fights Alien Invader Attack !!!!!
youtube.com/watch?v=mIpZ9xtEqVQ

(Alien mothership revealed at 0:14)

The makers of Game Change also made Recount, an HBO pick on the 2000 Election that was remarkably sympathetic to the Democratic candidate and made the Republicans look like villains, with one caveat at the end. They said they were Democrats so of course they'd be more sympathtic.

Now Game Change comes on.

The ignorance that is presented as the essence of Sarah Palin is a media fantasy . . . in keeping with the vision that the Left always sees in Republicans: Palin was stupid (they'd invested too many years proclaiming McCain the perfect Republican until he became the nominee) . . George W. Bush was stupid, George Bush was out of touch (it's the economy, stupid was aimed at Bush the Elder), Ronald Reagan (an amiable dunce, ignorant, "just" an actor, a madman bent on destroying the Earth, thank god for Gorbie), Ford (the clutz from SNL was anything but ... he was a remarkable athlete), Nixon (evil personified, until Reagan, until W), Goldwater (the Daisy ad?), Eisenhower (also considered a dunce in the eyes of the Left).

And on the Dem side? Carter was so intelligent (salutatorian from the Naval Academy) . . . Dukakis was so thoughtful (it was going to the be year of the Dukaki) . . . Clinton was so intelligent . . . Algore was so intelligent . . . Kerry was so intelligent (he served in Vietnam you know, and he speaks French) . . . Obama was so intelligent (look for the creepy YouTube videos of children singing in his honor of how Obama was going to "save" them, I guess during his trips to the 57 states) .
. .

And we're supposed to trust a historical fiction and treat it as reality?

The lack of self awareness on the Left is amazing to behold . . .

Sidebar, yerhonor: You've given me an infinitely more interesting topic than Sarah Palin in your mention of Ferdinand Feghoot at the start of your "John Carter" review. I haven't thought of those silly little tales in a long while--although I have one lodged in my memory like a bad seed in a tooth; well, not the story, just the terrible pun at the end--they all had atrocious pun-punchlines, as I recall. It concerned Tolkien ingesting something--mushrooms?--and beginning to hallucinate all manner of strange things, particularly small hairy-footed little creatures--at which he is informed, "I didn't say they weren't Hobbit-forming." Ouch. And thanks.

Ebert: This review was sure to draw Palin supporters. What I would like to point out, with considerable pride, is that the comments on both sides of the fence are generally literate and effectively written. I vet everything, and have only had to kill three comments for the usual reasons (obscenity, libel, etc). Compared to many comment sections on the web, this blog is the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Amen to that! The comments are even more entertaining than the review itself. Left and right are both articulate and rarely stoop to character assassination. A joy to peruse.

Ebert: You linked to a bad page. I corrected it for you. Here's the bit.ly link:

http://bit.ly/ADQusw

I nearly spit out my tea, reading that. Kill 'em with kindness!

Won't enabling comments on your movie reviews cause you more trouble than it's worth? (I ask this, because you state in a comment above you are redesigning your page to allow user comments)
Say, for instance, you give a 1 star rating to "The Avengers", or "The Hunger Games". You'll most likely be flooded by fan boys angry that you rated their favorite comic or novel so poorly, and they'll proceed to state their reasons why, it is in fact, the best movie adaptation ever, etc etc.
Like your "Thor" review last summer.
Is it worth it?

Yes Steve, there does seem an increasing degree of superficiality in the general discourse, by which I mean a fixation on molar appearances accompanied by an inability or outright unwillingness to penetrate into the molecular complexities of a given issue. I'm not sure if this is the result of an over-exaggerated focus on results as compared to one on the process of sincere intellectual inquiry, or that the internet is just making it seem so. Either way, it is clearly becoming more apparent not just here, but throughout most message boards.

The interesting thing about it, and what makes the issue relevant here, is that it was exactly the same superficiality that Palin appealed to and what made her potentially successful -to the point of scary if you ask me.

[tab]That said, I've always considered Ebert an essential source and guide to movies I often like, but might have missed out on were it not for him. Nor I would agree that he has some kind of leftist slant that would compromise his capacity for fair judgement. I would note his review on Atlas Shrugged, a classic of right-wing smugness, in which he admitted that he actually wanted it to work but just found it too boring. This suggests someone who actually wants some understanding of the other side's perspective, who actually takes pleasure in it. In fact, a repulsion toward one dimensional portrayals (whether conservative or progressive) is the cornerstone of competency in the creation of art, and the criticism of it, and is what distinguishes the mediocre from the excellent. It would be silly to think that Ebert got where he is without that quality.

OK, I know that I am on the opposite side of the political spectrum from you, Roger, and that we will never agree on that topic. However, I think you are a wonderful movie critic and, when its not political, you and I agree on a lot. But movies like this really anger me (and yes, I've seen it). Its bad enough that the book used unnamed sources for its information on Palin. Now here's the movie that (conviently) leaves out the parts from the book about the democrats and focuses entirely on her to regurgitate the same infomation from those very same sources. It doesnt matter that everyone that was actually involved with the campaign, and was there say that it is all completely untrue. Unfortunately, now there will be many who will watch this and say that this movie represents historical fact.

I stopped reading comments about halfway down when the right-wing hate machine got cranked up. Great review, Roger. I can't wait to see the movie. Fox News has sure done a good job on a large segment of our society. Sad state of affairs.

"Julianne Moore ... is the actress. She's a good actress, but not in the league of Sarah Palin."

So ... Sarah Palin is an actress?

Make up your mind, Randy.

To call Sarah Palin an actress is not and never was demeaning - either to her or to the acting profession generally.
Perhaps a better - more apt, anyway - term would have been performer.
All politicians have to be performers these days.
Our first performer-politician, the one who set the bar for everybody who came after, was Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
He wasn't our first radio President; that would have been one of his immediate predecessors, either Harding, Coolidge, or Hoover.
But FDR, with his great voice, timing, and delivery, knew how to appear Presidential, even when you couldn't see his face.
His was the first Presidential voice that became a prime target for imitators. Every comedy show, and most of the documentary shows, always had an FDR imitator on the payroll; those performers were kept busy. (Did you know that Art Carney got his start on radio as an FDR voice? Another was Kenny Delmar [Fred Allen's Senator Claghorn], who was the very Rooseveltian ' Secretary of the Interior' in Orson Welles's War Of The Worlds.)
From FDR's time to the present day, those who take to the national political stage have to become performers, no more or less than the newspeople who cover them. On radio it was the voice; TV came along, and the look became equally important.
Remember the first Nixon-Kennedy debate in 1960? (Not directly, of course, but most of you must have at least read about it.)
After it ended, the consensus among those who heard it only on radio was that Nixon had easily outdone Kennedy.
Those who watched it only on TV saw Kennedy as the clear winner.
Who was right?
Both groups - and neither.
People talked later about Nixon's lousy makeup job, but if you checked out all the comments that came out, the split was pretty much on party lines - each side was certain that their guy had aced the debate (remind you of anything, Randy?).
Bringing it up to present times, you find that most comics complain that Obama has few if any "hooks" that they can base material on. Mimics only have Obama's staccato speech patterns to use, and that's not a lot.
He also has those ears that political cartoonists love, but you have to be careful not to overdo it (we will most likely never elect a President with a prominent nose, a facial deformity, or a noticeable speech impediment).

How this applies To Sarah Palin:
Many threads ago, I noted that when John McCain selected her for the VP slot, he could not have been unaware of her close resemblance to Tina Fey, having guest-hosted SNL several years before. Palin herself was also aware of this - she says so in her own book. More to the point, she had started out in TV as a sports reporter - and TV news is nothing if not performance, especially these days.
And you sure as hell don't get elected to public office, whether mayor, governor, or even vice-president, unless you get in front of audiences and talk at them - whether you feel like it or not.
And that's performing.

So drop that "demeaning" meme.
If you're so determined to be negative, "damning with faint praise" is possibly more accurate.

Oh, and that last comment about Tom Hanks:
If you're really that petty, vindictive, and generally small-minded that you "blacklist" performers because they back politicians that you disapprove of -
- Somewhere back on another thread, I wrote about how my father used to enjoy many actors and comics whose politics didn't jibe with his own.
Dad was a union Democrat; he told us that he'd never vote Republican because they were always anti-labor. At the same time, when the newLeft surfaced in the '60s, he didn't much care for their tactic either.
But that latter happening didn't affect his entertainment choices one little bit.
He would call us kids out to watch Zero Mostel do his
wild comedy, or see actors like Lionel Stander, Theo Bikel, Gale Sondergaard, Will Geer, et al., or any number of others whose names and acts I can't call to mind right now. And Dad was the one who introduced us kids to Monty Python which he'd seen on a business trip to England a few years before it first aired here in the USA.
How they voted didn't matter to Dad. He watched Republican performers, Democratic performers, anyone he enjoyed for their performance skills alone.
And in this respect, I take after him.
Attitudes such as yours, Randy, I find very hard to comprehend.
In fact, I make bold and say that deep down, you don't really believe them yourself.
After all, you keep coming back here, don't you?

Roger,

This has nothing to do with Sarah but…In your review of Deep Thoat you wrote, “In one of the Feghoot adventures, the hero finds himself on Mars and engaged in bloody swordplay. He is sliced in the leg. Then in the other leg. Then an arm is hacked off. "To hell with this," Feghoot exclaims, unholstering his ray gun and vaporizing his enemies.”

I don’t remember that one, so I’m forced to ask. What was the pun? There was never a Feghoot that didn’t end with a dreadful pun. You know, “He didn’t have enough rents to come out of the Seine.” Or “One man’s meat is another man’s poi, son.” Or “It’s only a Furry with a Syringe on top”

After reading all of the comments. I'm thinking you need a catchphrase for your reviews of political movies.

"I review, you decide"

Roger,
I am a Black woman .... and I always knew that the first Black President would have a rough go of it but ... geez. If it's raining outside and I can't go out play a conservative/republican would say yeah and you know it's raining on your parade .... OBAMA. I mean it seems like no matter what the conversation/discussion is republican/conservative will manage to bring up Obama's name. If you don't like him fine come November vote for someone else... geez.

Roger,
Most conservatives know she was unqualified, and I think that greatly contributed to McCain's loss. Republican's weren't excited about the McCain ticket and Palin didn't do much to change that. I think the biggest problem I had was that she seemed too content in her ignorance. It's one thing to say you don't have to be a scholar to be president, but it's another thing entirely to believe you can be ignorant and be president. I'm not sure, but I think Palin may know she's not qualified and that may account for her staying on the sidelines - I guess time will tell.

One thing I wonder about the book and the movie is whether McCain is being portrayed as honestly as Palin is. It seems like the authors respected him more and may not have (or been able to) represented him in an unbiased light.

Hi Richard.

it was still palin who was the candidate who lost an election. i find her more responsible for the failure.

Then you find so in contradiction to the evidence, and to bias. Sarah Palin got John McCain more votes than he would have gotten on his own. McCain says that. The vote breakdown says that.

2008 was an anybody-but-Bush year. The Democrat was going to win, whether Obama or Hillary of the reprehensible John Edwards for that matter. McCain was not going to overcome that. He might have, if his staff had understood Palin and unleashed her? But they didn't, and they mishandled her and muzzled her, and then it was about McCain. The Senator had one dramatic chance for his own game change. That was when he dramatically suspended his campaign in October to rush back to Washington on TARP. Had he done something dramatic, like oppose TARP, he might have had a chance. He didn't. It fizzled. And so did his campaign. McCain lost. And anybody-but-Bush won.

what has she accomplished?

This question is depressing. We are 3 years past the election. Why don't you know the answer to this question? The bias and incompetence of the MSM is the reason.

I'll give you a few, which you should already know about Palin:

Yes, she was elected Mayor of Wasilla and anybody can "get elected". She improved the growth prospects of that town. Cutting the budget. Reforming the leadership. Roads and infrastructure. Attracting new businesses. It's what mayors do, and she did it well. Makes me think every candidate for president should have been a mayor to have that entry level government - executive experience.

She accomplished a lot in just getting elected Governor. In defeating the Murkowski clan, against really overwhelming odds.

She accomplished a lot reforming the oil industry - government relationship in a state in which the oil industry dominates. She temporarily defeated the Corrupt Bastards Club, and got a better deal for the real owners of the resource - the people of Alaska.

She negotiated one of the largest gas pipeline deals in America's history.

Why don't you know that? You can evaluate it however you like. But you should know her accomplishments.

Pick up a copy of "the Undefeated" already. I got my copy for $13 at Walmart. Spend a couple of hours on it. I read Obama's book. You can do this.

The rise and fall of John Edwards would make a much better movie. Classic theme of how power corrupts. The left won't touch it. Proof positive liberal bais very real.

@ randy

This week has convinced me that this election makes very little difference in the scheme of things. We are so polarized, and so far past the tipping point of being able to pull this thing back together. It matters little which of the parties or candidates wins in November. We're $16 trillion dollars in debt and going further over the cliff every passing day. That's the pivotal fact, and all of this political wrangling is not going to change that one iota.

this week you were convinced? not in '07 or beyond? i'm similarly convinced, so the question is why? two reasons:

1. because those who make decisions today will not be around when their decisions actually show zero results. also, many decisions never actually reach their ending. take the education policy of "no child left behind," hastily copied from england's "every child moves ahead." it claimed that by 2015 every child to be able to show designated minimum skills. we in education were up in arms because we know there are 12-year olds out there who can't tie their own shoes, but pres. bush said they'd be scoring proficiently in a few years. we knew it was impossible, and teachers around me freaked. i tried to tell them not to worry, that by the time '15 rolled around, the law would be amended, repealed, trashed, whatever. last year, obama allowed states to exempt themselves from the law if those states believed it was not attainable.

2. candidates are great at talking about how they're going to do things differently, they're not obliged to beltway business as usual. and we believe it because we're too ignorant to challenge those stump speeches. i'm waiting for the day when someone say to mitt or newt or rick, "hey, sir, how about telling me this: you don't vote in congress. you're at the mercy of X democrats and 100-X republicans. they vote on bills, not you. tell me how you're going to get them to A. write the bills that you want and B. vote for the bills that you want them to write? how will you convince them that you're right?"

i'm glad we can agree on something. that politicians care more about the good of the party than the good of the people. they want to advance their brand, not society.

I have to say a lot of poster here are saying either the movie is very accurate in it's portrayal of Palin or inaccurate. The thing is that this is a movie and it's obviously dramatized and I doubt the dialogue and acting are 100% accurate. Roger even you have to admit that actors, directors, writers etc. dramatize the hell out of real world events and also change a lot either for artistic or opinionated reasons. Obviously people that are liberal are going to love the portrayal and Republicans are going to hate it. Thats politics. For one think that Pali is the evil idiot that a lot of democrats make her out to be. She has been portrayed as a total clueless idiot by the media but I think there is a lot of intelligence there(weather you agree with her politics or not) she just wasn't prepared to go out in front of a hostile media.

Hi Randy,
When I was referring to republicans/conservatives managing to bring Obama's name up in any conversation/discussion I was referring to the comments in this post not the movie or the motives of the movie. It's a movie about Palin not Obama ... believe you me when Obama is out of office they will make movies and everything else about him and most will take aim at him and shot from both barrels, cannons, etc... I think it's kind of sad that as a country in 2008 we had for the first time two minorities, a black man and a woman, running for the two highest offices in the land they were both thoroughly disrespected and probably will continue to be long into the future.

F.Y.I I am a democrat/liberal, black and a woman. To put a finer point on it I consider myself socially lberal fiscally conservative, anywho, I have no problems/qualms defending Palin even though I don't agree with her politics; however, she may have a problem defending me and that is what irks me about republican/conservative women. I will not be viewing Game Change because I don't have HBO and I am sick of talking, thinking, etc.. about Palin and Obama. I feel like I have been thoroughly whipped as a black person and a woman. I am exhausted literally and figuratively.

What it comes down to isn't right or left, or Palin or Obama or any of that stuff.

It comes down to a simple menu choice: French fries or Freedom fries?

God bless America.

"I think there is a lot of intelligence there(weather you agree with her politics or not) she just wasn't prepared to go out in front of a hostile media."

Which does beg the question why the hell she allowed her name to go forward for the Vice-Presidency of the United States. FFS, if McCain had won part of her duties would have been to act as President of the Senate (and cast the deciding vote in the case of a tie) and be first in the line of succession of the President died or was otherwise incapacitated.

If Palin "wasn't prepared to go out in front of a hostile media" in the course of a general election campaign, you've got to ask how the delicate petal would have handled breaking the tie on a highly contentious piece of legislation or occupying the Oval Office. If you can't handle harsh scrutiny or criticism, perhaps you should stay the hell out of politics.

Since I don't have HBO, and can't watch Game Change tonight, I picked up a copy of the book at the library.

The prologue opens with a story about Obama waking up frightened in his hotel room on Iowa Caucus night, thinking "I might actually win this thing!". So, who was the unnamed source who knows what Obama was thinking in his hotel room? Why would you read that story and find this book credible?

The first two sentences of the prologue ticked me off.

"Barack Obama jerked bolt upright in bed at three o'clock in the morning. Darkness enveloped his low-rent room at the Des Moines Hampton Inn; the airport across the street was quiet in the hours before dawn."

Wait a minute. "Low-rent" Hampton Inn? Says who?

I love Hampton Inns. Love them. I stay in them on the road for business when I can justify the expense. They have a consistent nationwide quality, a great bed, quality free wi-fi, and an excellent hot breakfast in the morning.

I consider them high-end. They are above the price range that I can usually afford to pay on personal travel. When I stay in them, as I did on my recent trip to NYC with my boys, it's a splurge.

So, who is the frickin' elitist who thinks that the Hampton Inn is "low-rent"?

The same people who sneer at a populist governor from Alaska, that's who. The people selling the "Big Dummy" meme this time around. The people who think they know what Obama was thinking in his hotel room at 3 am in the morning.

Screw 'em.

I'm thinking Game Change is now a one-day story now that it has premiered tonight.

Back to the relevant election.

It's too bad Obama wasn't vetted as much as Palin was...

Ebert: Didn't you get that the wrong way around--from your POV, I mean?

Great flick. I have to disagree with some that McCain was presented in a flattering light. While he did try to run an admirable campaign and tamp down the crazy, the fact that he 'farmed out' such an important decision to his handlers makes me very glad he did not wind up President.

The comments here are almost as fascinating as the film. Some people are determined to believe what they feel is true, even when presented with the facts.

Unlike all of the posters who hadn't yet seen the movie before commenting...I just watched it. It was fantastic.
FANTASTIC.
Sarah's ignorance makes me shiver, and when I see her on Hannity spewing hatred and vitriol toward the sitting President of the United States, I am sickened.

This movie was utterly well done and I came away with a MUCH more sympathetic feeling toward John McCain. He defends her now because he rarely had to deal with her directly. He defends her now because he can't admit to the American people how close to danger he really thrust them. He defends her because he feels sorry that he thrust a completely ill-prepared and unqualified person into this critical role. SEE THE MOVIE!

Randy Masters needs a new hobby.

I said Janet Napolitano with whom Charlie interviewed Palin

Rats. That can't be right. Palin was not interviewed by Charlie and Napolitano

—Janet Napolitano with whom Palin was interviewed by Charlie

George S. to Nicole W. on ABC a minute ago: "How true is it?" (GAME CHANGE)

Nicole Wallace: "Enough to make me squirm..."

Here's the game changer:
"We have to make sure that we're on a mission, and that that mission is god's mission..."

I may not have recalled it perfectly, but I am close enough to swing the hammer on the last nail in the coffin of this debate. Palin invoked god as being on our side. This is disgraceful beyond words, ignorant without apology, and profoundly frightening. That so many millions could hear her say that to a crowd, and still support her in any possible capacity, speaks to the truly limited view of so many of us.

With a statement like hers, I can easily picture Palin shouting insults, leveling accusations of blasphemy, and gleefully supporting Torquemada as he burns yet another witch or sorceror to death.

Abraham Lincoln commented: " I suppose I cannot rely on divine answers for my struggles in this war. I will have to look at the facts."
Palin, Bachmann, O'Donnell, Santorum, Bush, etc. The list is nauseating. The best I can hope for them, and others like them, is that they are nothing more than shameless panderers. The worst I fear from them, is that they actually believe.

As I've said many times on this blog, I not only believe, but have proved that anybody can be a genius. So, I'm probably more on the conservative side at least in terms of "well, let's see what humans can if we're all geniuses." If we were all geniuses chances are we wouldn't need so much government help. We'd be curing cancer and who knows what else. But also, as Mozart said, "Love is the soul of genius." So, it seems our government is kind of two aspects of ourselves. And there's no reason why we can't be geniuses and try to help others too. So, to me, I'm probably more on the conservative side in terms of wanting to see what happens if we all became geniuses. It seems to me that conservatism has to stay alive by having these big ideas like this. I don't think it can just say "I want freedom." It has to say why. And think the why should be is that we all can become geniuses. And I don't see why liberals can't be for that either. So, to me, I'm for people becoming geniuses. I don't care which side. When we all become geniuses, then I'd like to listen to what both sides have to say. And it seems to me that if conservatives want to win they have to be the better geniuses. If they were geniuses and all they had to say was "I want freedom"...I don't think they'd be winning. I know that doesn't seem to make much sense but get up there and don't just say "you're all soon-to-be millionaires." It seems with them freedom is only about money and money that mathematically isn't possible to get. It seem they only have principles because they are cost-efficient, as if, within it being only about money, freedom is only important if it's on a discount. Then there's the other stuff I mentioned, which I suppose brings us...

back to the discussion,

So, you don't think that they picked Sarah Palin primarily because she was a woman?

They didn't even want her to have a concession speech. The plan was basically "just show up...with that punam"...even when they lost...they still just wanted her to show up.

How about clicking on my name, Randy, heh?....how about it, Randy, Heh? What a job clicking on my name would be, heh?

You can see he's just going "Sarah Palin. There, I said her name. Make me President"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFibmFLWmC0&feature=related

Also, yes, you don't think a lot of people voted for Obama because he was black?

Or that he ran for President because he was black and knew that people would be voting for him for that reason?

First black President has pretty nice ring to it.

So does two-term elected first black President.

So, it's not about race; it's about setting precedence.

First black President. First woman Vice President (since they didn't have the race-precedent as well). First woman President.

I mean, after George W. Bush anybody could have gotten elected. Obama saw the opening, that we had an evil little goblin in the White House and all he had to do was remind us of the goblin. He could still run on goblin this year and I think he's going to; he's going to be saying "we don't want to go back to the policies that got us here in the first place" but what that means on another level is "you guys remember the goblin, George W. Bush?...Did you like the goblinness? Well, we got plenty more goblins here that are against women and kinds of other messes. One of them, who I'll probably be running against, looks down upon you. Sees you as a life-obstacle. You're just a stepping stone from which he plans on looking down upon you as fools."

The rise and fall of John Edwards would make a much better movie. Classic theme of how power corrupts. The left won't touch it. Proof positive liberal bais very real.

Is it because he's not a real psychic? :)

Btw...

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118021834

So, let's say I'm a scientist. I want to test a theory. I've arrived at my theory through research and evidence. Now, I do an experiment. If I am testing a drug, I do a double study with the drug and with a placebo on a sample size. When the results come in, the drug has either worked or it hasn't.

This is what governing is. A science. It is objective in that it's not based on personal belief. It's based on evidence. The politician after evidence-based research forms a policy. He tests this by implementing it over the country. If the measured results come back positive, the policy stands. If they come back negative, the policy goes, to be replaced by something that does quantitatively work.

We seem to be missing evidence-based thinking with our politics. In any other situation, say finding the right job or refrigerator, we weigh the evidence. But in politics, far more important to far more people, it's all become belief-based. Like religious faith. Despite the objective evidence we can measure, we still believe what we want. So there are two sides, two philosophies to every question, when in reality, there is only the truth--what works and what doesn't.

Sarah Palin is the bellwether for the anti-intellectualism we so vituperatively practice today. She is clearly unqualified by character, experience, knowledge and judgement. But, because we live apparently now in a belief-based political culture, those objective qualities are considered liberal attacks by her supporters, who themselves cannot see that they, their own judgements about her are empirically wrong. They think we've abandoned reason for accepting a socialist health care law when in reality it's anything but, for waging class warfare when we say we want to fairly tax the wealthy. Their own look at the objective record of Pres. Obama is deeply flawed, and yet, they think ours is when we actually see what he's done. It's fascinating in the epistemological and sociological sense, this take-over of subjective belief over rational people and rational systems, but it's from the standpoint of a successful republic, tragic.

Ugh, Roger.

It's sad that you and so many others are just so blithely accepting of the framework of this show.

But to backtrack, both the GOP and the Democratic Party are so horribly in the pocket of big money contributors its tragic - BUT to put things in their proper context, the GOP is worse.

But are film or TV studios going to allow this corrupt aspect of modern politics to enter into the equation? NO - because these big money contributors also to an extent control THEM (or own them). Not to mention most major players in the print media are awash in this money as well.

No portrayal of the politics game that leaves out the corrupting influence of the 'big money' is a lie.

Palin especially had developed deep ties with the Koch Brothers (who invented the Tea Party) and others of that ilk. To paint her as some naive backwoods hick is deeply false. Despite being so remote from the rest of the country Alaska is not exactly free of venal politicians and big money corruption.

Its sad people don't pay more attention to Bill Moyers - he is one of the few out there who tells it like it is.

I usually root for the Democrats, but in 2008, I was far less disturbed by the prospect of an unengaged, inexperienced, self-absorbed, all-style-no-substance vice-president than by the prospect of a similarly limited president, a man whose sole ability seemed to be reading from a teleprompter eloquent speeches others had written. Obama symbolized wonderful things, but for me, his disengagement with anything other than his own buzzwords and his own personal brand seemed far greater than Palin's could ever be.

But four years later, the president seems to have acquitted himself reasonably well, given the intractable economic problems he inherited. For those who were counting on him to be the messiah and save the world, well, he's failed by that metric, as anybody would. But given Palin's conduct over the past four years - quitting as governor, and accomplishing literally nothing other than perpetuating America's internal culture wars - does anyone really think she'd have been a better president than the one we got? Seems to me the biggest difference between Palin and Martin Sheen in "The Dead Zone" is that Martin Sheen has been known to use words of more than two syllables.

"You have a movie produced by people who would never have considered voting for the McCain/Palin ticket and are heavy Obama campaign donors."

Randy Masters: You keep repeating this, but I still don't know what your point is. Stephen Frears, Peter Morgan, Helen Mirren and Michael Sheen are all high profile supporters of the British Labour Party and avowed small-r republicans. It was widely predicted in the British tabloids (mostly VERY right-wing) that the film would be a left-wing, anti-monarchy "hit job" - and it wasn't.

I also rather doubt Meryl Streep winning an Oscar for playing Margaret Thatcher means she's going to be crossing the pond to campaign for the Conservative Party in three years.

I don't actually think either 'Game Change' or 'The Iron Lady' are good movies, but I think Randy Masters your real problem - and it's a common one - is that you find it hard to distinguish between politics and a religious cult where everything (including the arts) must toe the doctrinal line. And for true believers, the heretics are always more contemptible than the infidels aren't they?

Sarah Palin wasn't qualified? But Barack Obama was? Puh-leeze

Ebert: I think events since 2008 have richly demonstrated that.

"...and although Palin's supporters are protesting its negative portrait, the facts and dialogue seem to be accurate".

So, in a movie directed by a man who, in a recent interview, could not cite a single negative aspect to Obama's first term, and produced by a well-known Hollywood liberal (Tom Hanks) who actually narrates Obama's 2012 re-election campaign video, Roger Ebert (also well known for his liberal politics) thinks "the facts and dialogue seem to be accurate". Well, that certainly assuages my skepticism. Oh right, "neither Schmidt nor Wallace have questioned the movie's accuracy". Have they um... what's the word... oh yes, CONFIRMED its accuracy? Has anyone else related to the McCain '08 campaign substantiated any facts and/or dialogue? No? Have any repudiated the portrayal? Yes? Well of course. They're biased, you see. Can't trust them as a source of "facts."

This kind of lopsided, ideologically infused review is why your reputation has suffered so much in recent years, Roger.

Ebert: "Nicolle Wallace, a McCain staffer who handled Palin, described the movie as “true enough to make me squirm” on ABC’s “This Week.”

Read here: http://thesent.nl/xFRGsl

Never a Palin supporter, the movie made her more sympathetic in my eyes. Shortly after she was nominated it became clear she was in over her head. The meme became that she was a regular person, like you and me. There are over 300 million people in the US. 99%+ of them are not qualified to be President. This does not reflect badly on them. It is the hardest job in the world and to take a 'regular' person and put them in the position to be President is foolish. I think the railing about Palin's stupidity is overblown. She is just a person of average intelligence. No shame in that. But she is ignorant in certain areas. The typical citizen does not dwell on foreign policy and Constitutional issues. But some people do because they have the desire or curiosity to know. Palin likely had the intelligence to know but she lacked the desire to know. And that is not something that can be rectified in the course of the last two months of a presidential campaign. She came across as a decent, provincial, family-oriented woman, in way over her head and trying to make the best of it. The blame was not hers. The blame was those who selected her. Still, has McCain won and had something happened to him shortly after the election, it would have been frightening to have her as President.

I think part of the problem is that people seem to take to an either or approach to this discussion. Clearly much of what the film claims is true and even if specific incidents are not the overall premise that Palin was not prepared to be president is accurate. Are we really supposed to believe though that any woman of a reasonable intelligence which Palin is with a son being deployed into the military didn't know Iraq was not the perpetrator of 9/11.

Palin clearly doesn't have the temperament to be president but I do think much of the discussion of her and the reason absurdities such as the above are accepted lies in the conflating of eloquence with intelligence. While it is true generally the more intelligent a person is the more well spoken they will be; it's also true I met a Stanford Prof. with one of the worst stutters I've ever heard and John Travolta could definitely give a convincing political speech. Ms. Palin may have seemed unsuited to be president based on her interviews but there's nothing that indicates she wouldn't know what the axis powers were. The fact is you can believe many negative things about Palin without necessarily buying full scale into this narrative but some I think simply want to despite occam's razor strongly indicating it's falsity.

Still don't have HBO. So, I got in more reading in the book Game Change today, before going to Riverdance tonight.

Let me get this straight: Sarah Palin's name is not mentioned until page 353 of this 436 page book? And the producers of the movie thought this was the most interesting thing to make their whole movie about, and not the first 350 pages about the Obama / Hillary tussle? (Not that I believe them on those parts either.) Wow. It's a hit piece on Palin alright.

But, if you want to believe the book, the authors make a compelling case that McCain lost because of his ineffectual gimmick of suspending his campaign and going to the White House on the TARP bailout, and then fizzling there. Which is correct. and what I've been saying for a while. Not because of Palin - who got him votes. So, there's that.

I felt like this movie was a very sympathetic portrayl of the campaign, and it is obvious when you watch it that a few of the characters must have been contributors to the book. The self-doubt shown at the end of the campaign, when his advisors realize that Palin is in fact utterly unwilling to listen to others and unwilling to really learn is pretty clear, and McCain's own reaction to his crowds saying rather nasty things is as I remember it - at the end of the campaign, it felt like McCain came to realize that some of his supporters really were not his sort of people.

Its a sad story about how charisma and cheap answers can take you a long way, but it is also interesting in that it shows just how well campaigns can work around these things, if they're allowed to. It shows just how important it is for the press to have access to the candidates and actually dig into them.

A lot of people will say this is a Palin hit job. It isn't. This is Palin. She is flawed. She really did give stupid answers, and she really did show a great deal of ignorance. Her inability to answer even simple questions was quite horrible, and the fact that the debate went well because she just redirected questions into rote answers was exactly what it felt like she always did - and now it is obvious that the reason why wasn't that she knew to stay on message, but that her advisors had told her to do it. It explains her writing on her hand things that she had been talking about for ages. It just shows what sort of person she is, and that person is not someone who should wield power.

It is sad that Alaska elected her in the first place. Shows just how little vetting goes into politicians sometimes, even elected ones.

Ebert: I think events since 2008 have richly demonstrated that.
Which events have demonstrated what? The dialogue on this thread (and almost all other posts/blogs I read) has moved from political discussion to a strict rehash of entrenched partisan ideology with generic statements thrown out that lack specific detail and explanation.

The events that I have witnessed since 2008 demonstrate Obama/the liberal and Bush/the conservative are simply mirror images of each other.

Bush: TARP bank bailout that transferred billions (trillions?) to the elite bankers
Obama: Quantitative easing that transferred billions (trillions?) to the elite bankers

Bush: Patriot act that suspended/terminated individual rights under the American Constitution
Obama: NDAA that suspended/terminated individual rights under the American Constitution

Bush: Unauthorized wars that killed American soldiers and innocent civilians
Obama: Unauthorized wars that killed American soldiers and innocent civilians

Bush: Soaring federal deficits that have strangled economic growth
Obama: Soaring federal deficits that have strangled economic growth

Do we see a trend? … corruption, crony capitalism, false statistics, outright lies to the American people. Bush/Obama have led this country to the brink of economic and political collapse. To write back and forth as to who was not vetted properly or who was or wasn’t qualified misses the big picture. There may be differences in political posturing but there is no difference in the results of decay and degradation brought on the leadership of the last two presidents. Until the American electorate demands actual integrity and fiscal responsibility as opposed to rhetoric and entitlements the United Sates will continue on a path of failure until the once noble experiment in individual freedom and free market economics disappears into a cesspool of global socialism and personal despair.

Palin was simply a side show. She didn’t have the required NWO air about her. She was never going to serve the UN and NATO. Global government administered by the World Bank was not part of her agenda. Never once was she invited to the Bilderberg meetings. She would pooh-pooh the new global reserve currency system to replace the dollar, and defund corrupt international organizations.
Puppets who are groomed for their role and elected by a rigged system have met the Globalist criteria.
Palin wanted to resuscitate our expired nation. The elitists have far more sinister plans.

“Dangerously incompetent”. What is it about the Republicans that has made them so frequently provide us with dangerously incompetent candidates for President? GW Bush was so dangerously incompetent that he allowed our nation to suffer its worst attack since World War II, and then led us happily into Iraq. Hey, at least that mission is accomplished, right? I won’t mention his cipher of a father who at least got us out of the wars he started. Wasn’t there a President Nixon who had to resign because he basically didn’t understand the difference between right and wrong? Wasn’t there a President Hoover who watched as we plummeted into the Great Depression? I won’t mention Harding or Grant or the others. I think you can see a pattern.
And now, what are they proposing to offer us? Santorum? Rick Perry? The Newt? Are they kidding?? It’s as if they never learn lessons. What is it about Republicans? I’m sure they have some best and brightest somewhere. So why don’t they offer them as candidates?

So Nicole Wallace vouches for the accuracy of the movie Game Change?

Well of course she does. She is the source!

So, who vetted the accuracy of Wallace?

May she never work on a GOP campaign again. Backstabber.

I always figured Palin was an idiot. The middle part of the movie actually changed my mind about her. The Republican got someone who was unlike any other politician they had had before. And then they go and try and teach her like they would any other politician. That doesn't compute.

When you see her body language closing off, how come no one realized 'Hey, maybe she doesn't learn this way. Maybe we should change OUR tactics to get her more interested/motivated.' I felt sorry for Palin, and started to understand how she (the real person) says she was mishandled.

And I found myself questioning the morality of these advisers working so hard to put someone in office that they felt was unqualified/potentially dangerous.

Roger answered to someone about how she was vetted and that he felt Obama was vetted better. Roger I think the poster meant the media vetting not the campaign vetting. McCains Campaign did not vet Sarah well but the media looked into every little crevice of her life. What the media did not do was vet Obama well at all. The media largely ignored the Bill Ayers connection and took Obamas "neighbor" answer to his relationship with Ayers without any questioning. Yes Fox news delved into it(found some disturbing connections) but the majority of the networks and newspapers ignored it. It seems that Sarahs faults were vetted much heavier in the media then Obamas and that's telling because the media while It has it conservative outlets is larger liberal. It's a wonder republicans even get elected at all these days.

Roger Nicole Wallace and Sarah Palin did not like each other.Why did you leave that out to your answer to Brian? We all know people at work we don't like or get along with. Some of the people that don't like their work colleagues will either lie or stretch the truth if it helps make their enemy look bad. Most of the campaign staff has said this movie is not accurate. Im not saying that Palin was a great running mate but a lot of this movie is a propaganda piece for the left. This movie has cheesy acting and it seems that the actors are aware that they are getting their shot at trying to damage the right and Palin and seem to be enjoying themselves. I am willing to bet that none of these actors is a republican or at least most of them. I'm glad you liked this movie but in terms of quality it's seemed on par with a made for TV movie of the week. I am willing to bet that Hollywood would never consider making a movie about Obamas early years campaigning with the homegrown terrorist of Bill Ayers. If Hollywood did consider making a film about Obamas relation with Ayers it would probably be the following: Obama walking out of his house to get a newspaper and upon seeing Ayers getting his paper he waves and says hi and walks back into his house. The movie would end there Roger.

When I remember the Couric interview, one thing strikes me... If I was asked that same question "What newspapers do you read?" I would have answered, "None, I get my news from the internet". I think Sarah overthought her answer, seeing "Sarah Reads Nothing!" headlines in her head and got flummoxed.

Also, I have read from many sources that the Couric interview was about three hours long and was VERY selectively edited down to what was shown on TV.

"This kind of lopsided, ideologically infused review is why your reputation has suffered so much in recent years, Roger."

Where, outside of the minds of a small handful of conservatives, has Roger's reputation suffered in recent years? I confess that I find it an odd career move for a successful celebrity to expend so much energy on a soul-crushing enterprise like political blogging, but if anything, Roger's writing (both in his reviews and on this blog) is growing ever more incisive and worthwhile.

Every review of anything, by anyone, is "lopsided" and "ideologically infused" - that's what criticism is. Readers just feel more passionately about their politics than about "Silent House".

It's too bad Obama wasn't vetted as much as Palin was...
Ebert: Didn't you get that the wrong way around--from your POV, I mean?

Obama was never vetted. I'm still waiting for the real birth certificate.

Mr Ebert, I wish you the best on posting in blog form. If you can sort through the incivility to find insight, then you are a more patient reader than myself.

I don't always agree with your movie review (probably just due to personal tastes) but I agree with you on this one. I found it an interesting movie, sympathetic to each of its characters, and a fascinating look from the point of view of primarily two of the insiders.

What I just can't wrap my mind around is this:

Critics of Sarah Palin often argue that she was neither qualified nor prepared to be vice president, and that she was picked by the McCain team and embraced by Republican voters only because she is a woman.

And yet, to speak in this way about Barack Obama's candidacy is declared by many of those critics to be decidedly hateful and ignorant speech.

nobody knows everything.

everybody knows something.

no matter how much we know or how much we don't know, there is always someone to which we can teach something and someone from whom we can learn something.

for 25 years i taught reading and writing and how to do both better.

for 45 years i've been reading and writing regularly.

having said all that, is it my imagination or did the word "meme" suddenly become popular? i swear i have never seen that word until about four or five months ago.

a cultural item that is transmitted by repetition in a manner analogous to the biological transmission of genes.

origin 1976

that's according to dictionary.com

Ebert: Popularized I think by Richard Dawkins.

As the day draws to its end, I would like to take a moment to express my sincere hope that nobody decides to use Randy Masters's frequent deployment of the terms hit ptece or backstabber as the basis for a drinking game.
The resultant tragedy could be devastating.

Hey, how's this for a Captcha:

bsj 4ms

*you can't make this stuff up*

Roger, I firmly believe that you are missing the following points of the entire story of the book and the film.

1. Schmidt failed to do his job
Schmidt's job was to run the campaign. Palin was not vetted. If he deferred to Culvahouse, then it was his job to make sure that the vetting was performed to his own satisfaction, not Culvahouse's. He did not do this, therefore he failed. Culvahouse says he was impressed by her--in his own words. Culahouse had never, ever, been involved with a presidential campaign. "Impressed by her" does not matter, was she vetted? No. Ergo, Schmidt failed.

2. Wallace failed to do her job.
Her job was to prepare Palin for the media and manage the media's perception of Palin. Did she adequately perform her tasks? No.

To me this is a sophomoric attempt by these two to absolve themselves and distance themselves from their respective failures. That these two have now become part of the talking head community is ironic--at best.

"To me this is a sophomoric attempt by these two to absolve themselves and distance themselves from their respective failures."

Yeah, because the far from flattering portraits of the runaway trainwreck that was the McCain campaign were a total PR spin job. Funny how the 'backstabbing loser' meme never seems to apply to Palin herself, whose own memoir did a pretty good job of holding everyone else responsible for her not being the sitting tenant of One Observatory Circle today. I'm just thankful that someone who found debate prep and briefing books such an impertinence isn't somewhere where her flat out laziness and disinclination to accept any personal responsibility for her own actions could do real harm.

Ebert: Popularized I think by Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins coined the term in The Selfish Gene, which was a very good read. He spent a whole chapter exploring the idea.

It's funny but I read all these posts and all the debates about politics here and now about Palin. There is one irrefutable truth I have learned and that is no one here has ever changed another persons mind about even the smallest thing politically. We all argue and try to out do the one we are debating with and hope we get some kind of victory. Basically we are all just a bunch of over inflated bags of hot air that are wasting lots time stroking our egos and aren't winning anything. So anyone here agrees that this whole discussion is a waste of time and we all have enormous senses of self importance give me an aye! So join me my Conservative and Liberal friends on something we may all agree on!

AYE!!!!

I hope my speech was as cheesy as the movie we are discussing.

"The topic on this thread is Sarah Palin. I'm talking about Sarah Palin. I like and and would vote for Palin. How that makes me a "fanboy" is beyond me."

Actually, Randy Masters, the topic is a film about Sarah Palin - and you've pretty much dismissed it as a "hit job" because it wasn't a drooling hagiography. I liked and would have voted for Margaret Thatcher if I was a British citizen (and old enough to vote when she was Prime Minister); I can detach from that far enough to judge 'The Iron Lady' as a film rather than a party political broadcast.

Try it, you might surprise yourself.

Small Time: Because Barack Obama gave great speeches. He gave incredibly thoughtful and intelligent interviews. His background was quite different from Palin's: Columbia and Harvard, the first African-American president of the very prestigious Harvard Law Review, becoming community organizer when any job in politics and Wall Street was open to him, constitutional law professor, Illinois politician, United States Senator. Palin went to multiple colleges to get a degree in communication, and she was mayor of a very small town in Alaska, which in total population is much smaller than many cities, and then she became governor by taking oil money, and flip-flopping.

You are ignoring the observable actual evidence of who Palin and Obama are, and what they did.

I really don't get putting belief over reality. Letting it dictate reality. It's nuts. You wouldn't keep driving a broken down lemon for years and think it's a top of the line Mercedes, would you? The physical car gives you the belief of whether it's good or not, not the other way around.

Randy has been all over the map with respect to the one reason this film was made: he's said it's just for money (and also says, for this reason, it is NOT an attack on Palin); it's so Schmidt and Wallace can work on GOP campaigns again; it's a "hit piece" in case Sarah Palin ran (contradicting what he said earlier about it not being an attack on Palin); it's so Schmidt and Wallace can gain favor with the "left media" so he can run a campaign for THEM.

All these don't add up to a coherent picture.

Biased film confirms viewer bias. If HBO was as right wing as it is left wing, Game Change would have a scene in which former Con Law professor Obama has to have the Bill of Rights explained to him.

That someone put it in a movie doesn't make it real.

After watching this, I have to ask if we were all wrong in thinking Palin might possibly have been incompetent as a vice-president. It seems that those who surrounded her are more guilty of the crime. And who can really say that Americans want an informed, intelligent president who knows history and geography and politics. I doubt 10% of Americans could answer the questions being fired at her, or that they would answer them any differently, or that they even care. To me, it seems that intelligence and knowledge are the last things we look to when electing a president. And even though I think Obama is the most intelligent person to inhabit the White House in many, many years, I fear he was elected as the first black president more than anything else. I've never liked Sarah Palin or thought much of her, but this show made me feel sorry for her, and that's a sad commentary, isn't it? I'm sorry this person got caught up in a brutal race for the presidency, which shouldn't be about how ignorant you are, and it seems so sad that that is even an issue.

Oh, I think you’re wrong about that why Palin was chosen, Keith. The McCain campaign was looking to pick up the disgruntled Hillary supporters. They figured, cynically, that any woman would pick up the ‘women’s’ vote. Of course, that is simply not true.

For those of you who liked, and believe, the book Game Change:

What did you think in the last section (if you got that far) in the part where John McCain foolishly suspended his campaign and rushed back to Washington to "cut a deal" on TARP, and then did nothing of consequence - and tanked his campaign?

The way I read that part, the authors portray George Bush as the adult in relation to McCain. Bush advised him not to do it, and was shocked when McCain came into the WH negotiating session - which McCain had demanded - and then had no position of consequence.

McCain was a poor candidate, and lost that race for himself. Palin lessened the crushing.

Hi Roger,

Now that Game Change has premiered, and to ratings much less than "Sarah Palin's Alaska" to boot, I'm moving on to two more interesting things:

1.) Can't wait for the release of the EbertFest schedule next Wednesday.

2) nor can I wait for "The Hunger Games" premiere. Read all three books and am addicted. I predict a big open for that franchise.

Maybe you don't want to be comparing your blog to Encyclopedia Britannica after the recent news. In 50 years, I wonder if we will all be mourning the demise of Wikipedia, and the "end of an era".

http://nyti.ms/w2LCMs

You sure can rock a boat, Mr. Ebert.

Which lever do I pull to vote Randy Masters off the island?

The Palin supporters in this dsicussion who are claiming Obama doesn't know anything about current events, world politics, history, geography either are confusing the issue. Pushing political policies and ideas that you disagree with is a different issue entirely. That might make him "dangerous" to this country in their eyes, but anyone can make this argument about politicians they disagree with.

I voted for Obama and plan to do so again, but I have no interest in seeing this movie. I'm ready to let Palin fade from the national consciousness to the point where she would no longer be a target for liberal commentators and comedians. The problem is that she doesn't seem to want to fade away, so I assume she will continue to be a target. She continues to display a certain amount of ignorance about certain issues, and again, I'm not talking about her political leanings. There are simply issues she's not well-versed in, yet she keeps voicing her opinions on them.

The film was one of the best poli films in recent memory, albeit painful to relive the depths to which we were all forced, with a candidate that clearly had no logic skills and resorted to memorized soundbites and sloganeering. It was astonishing to witness at the time and I couldn't read the book for that reason, but the film was easier to take. Has there ever been a VP candidate that didn't know these things (Korea, Fed, etc.) that the rest of us were taught in jr high? Guess you don't need that stuff to win pageants - which is what that race was for her. Maybe we should go back to the old system where the runner-up became VP and had to cross the aisle. Anyway, the film was so watchable because the performances were laudatory. All of them.

My only beef: The way it treated McCain.

I was in my car driving back from Chattanooga and heard Sarah's speech at the Republican convention. I was astonished. I'd never heard of this person, and yet she was hypnotizing and rousing all at once. She was wonderful. Then came Katie Couric. I started to get a sick feeling. Not for the country, but for John McCain. Why didn't Sarah just say "I don't read newspapers"? She was a deer in the headlights and indeed got run over by Katie the Car.

I have never understood Sarah Palin's popularity with a certain segment of our conservative population. She has the correct mindset, but she obviously does not have the experience to be anywhere near the White House. That is not a defect nor criminal offense. Most of us don't need be anywhere near the White House - including Barrack Obama. He's in so far over his head that I can hear bubbles every time he speaks. But for some reason, there is a similar faction of liberal America that loves him. He does the same "25" sound bite thing that Sarah Palin does, it's just different bites. He IS however smart enough to be President.

The shame in all of this is that we are being destroyed by politicians and lawyers from both sides of the fence, and those sitting upon it. As Cindy Lauper said - money changes everything.

Ebert: Popularized I think by Richard Dawkins.

What the hell does Family Feud have to do with this?

To all those talking about the 'extreme left' I would suggest that you do not have an extreme left in America. If you do it is certainly not the the democratic party who are actually to the right of most governments in the developed world.

I think it is probably telling of the insular nature of American politics that terms like extreme left get used. You would be more accurate to say 'slightly right' and 'extreme right'.

When I saw Palin give her maiden speech at the Republican convention, I was struck by its and her (clear to me anyway) malevolence. I am not sure a person who gives into the thrill of hate is fit or leadership.

having survived eight years of a "dangerously incompetent presidency", i suspect we could have survived another one, although i would admit there's no guarantee. the biggest difference between sarah and dubya is not so much intellectual slothfulness or willful stupidity as it is her resolute and unshakeable confidence that she is the earthly instument of a belligerent and partial god. even dubya wasn't that stupid. she is really beset by the conviction that anyone who is unafflicted by her delusions is an instument of satan, and it is her duty to destroy them.

Wonder if anyone's ever called Bill Clinton "the greatest actor in political history"?

Rick Santorum is just as unqualified to be President as Palin. And even more dangerous. Is that not obvious by now to all but the most delusional?

HBO movies are 99 times out of 100 well-written, smartly done and head and shoulders above commercial TV product. (That includes RECOUNT) But also 99 times out of 100, the Republican individuals in their films are invariably MORE flawed than the Democratic characters and are portrayed as lacking the moral high ground while their LESS flawed Democratic counterparts do not. 99 times out of 100 good actors, all Democratic, portray all the major Democratic AND Republican parts in the HBO films. I realize they are the majority, but could one talented Republican actor be allowed to play a Democrat...or God forbid, a Republican? There ARE a handful out there, but we never see them on HBO. The films HBO makes are excellent, but the playing field is hardly level despite what the directors and stars claim. Why else would Richard Dreyfuss keep playing negative Republican characters in THE DAY REAGAN WAS SHOT, THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT AND W. and play a positive-but-politically-unnamed President in the FAIL-SAFE remake? That remake and AMERICAN PRESIDENT are not HBO productions, but I make the comparison to point out the Democratic actors have a stranglehold on major political portrayals. This is no more so than on HBO.

Ebert: A fact: Most actors and other kinds of artists are Democrats. That's just the way it is.

I made a couple of false starts today; got bogged down each time by anger.

Consequently, I'll wait another day and let my current thoughts marinate a bit.

Meanwhile, slightly off-topic:
Is anyone here familiar with the mystery novels of Jane Haddam?
As of now, there are 26 books in the series, about a retired FBI agent named Gregor Demarkian, who solves cases that mainly revolve around the kind of social issues that pop up in this site.

I just finished reading Living Witness, #24 in the series, in which the crimes take place in a small Pennsylvania town that's being ripped apart by a dispute over Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design.
The bad behavior is pretty well divided between both sides.

I imagine it'll be hard to find the book right now - it was published in 2010, and midlist fiction has a notoriously short shelf life - but everybody who patronizes this site ought to at least try to track it down.
This means you too, Roger.
Good luck in finding it.

I have nothing but warm thoughts and sympathy for Sarah Palin. I think we can all relate to being embarassed and let down by the opinions of others.

My issue has always been a lack of sympathy in return. As a gay, middle-class American, I really ask myself what I could have done to make Palin dislike people like me so much. It's hard to like a hater, but at the same time, I don't have to hate the hater either.

@Small Time: And how many conservatives held Barack Obama to a higher standard than Sarah Palin? Plenty, because they loved her despite all the observable evidence that she wasn't qualified, and they called him constantly inexperienced and unqualified despite the observable evidence he displayed in his earlier life and during the campaign. It's in the movie. The movie's Mark Salter tells the campaign if they bring in Sarah Palin, that undercuts their Obama is inexperienced argument. And the movie like the reality proves that Palin was inexperienced, and ignorant, and not even close to having the intelligence Obama displayed, before, during, and after the campaign. Teddy Kennedy was friends with the Clintons but decided to endorse Obama after hearing and studying him. Colin Powell, a Republican, endorsed Obama after studying him. Minds were changed because of the campaign. We find out in the movie, Nicole Wallace, who worked on the McCain campaign could not vote for him because of Palin.

The before and during: there's quite a bit of evidence that he was qualified. He thought in nuance. He looked at both sides of any situation and went where the facts led him. He was empathetic towards the Right, proposing policies that included them and repeatedly saying we should not be red and blue America. He listened to people, to experts. Palin did none of those things. We saw her do none of those things. We saw her be unjustly divisive towards Americans, with her real and fake America speech. Her character attacks on Obama by saying he palled around with terrorists. They're in the movie. She continues to do it.

We liberals saw what he could do. We read his books, his speeches, his interviews. We were moved by his words. Which is a qualification for the office as it is important for a leader to lead his people. And we saw that Sarah Palin did not have any of those qualities. The problem is conservatives saw exactly what we saw and thought the opposite or ignored it, potentially putting the country in danger with full knowledge, because they hated the Democrat so much.

Which is my larger point. Ideology corrupts observation and reason and thinking and evidence. If aliens, who had no idea of what American Democrats and American Republicans were, and had no knowledge of what the history and culture of America were, came down and witnessed Obama vs. Palin, who do you think they would judge better?

Four years later, because of the evidence of his record, don't you think we were right?

This movie presented me with what i already thought to be true. If anything, it humanized her a bit and i felt some empathy.

Small Time:

"but won't you have to admit that few people outside of the Republican Party did that to a noticeable degree in 2008? "

I won't because it just isn't true; I read extensive (and often highly critical) scrutiny of his voting record and positions as a state and federal senator; I know the GOP has opposition researchers pouring over ever publicly available word he wrote in law school and there was plenty of person dirty thrown in his direction from all sides.

I know that the mantra from the GOP (and Clinton supporters) is that media were "in the tank" for Obama, therefore he could pretty much do and say anything without criticism but a lot of that has the acrid tang of rancid vinegar. Also, unlike many, my definition of "bias" isn't "anything I don't agree with".

I have no idea if Roger Ebert is a leftie or not, but I do know this from reading his work: he thinks critically.

It's depressing to read the hysterical and defensive responses from the pro-Palin camp in this forum. I haven't seen the movie Mr. Ebert describes but Ms. Palin was not set-up by the left wing media or McCain's aides. She was poorly vetted, and had a poor understanding of global issues, and was exposed by media who were doing their job. That's all.

If Palin has since become some kind of foreign policy expert, let her hold an open press conference, something she has never done, and I am willing to be convinced.

But if you are one of those enraged by the truth of what I just said, you're being duped. There's a difference between truth and spin, between journalism and activism. Try to figure it out. Perhaps there is nuance in a position you're desperately trying to destroy. I certainly think there's nuance in Mr. Ebert's article and you're so blinded by rage you can't see it.

I'm open to other positions. Get off the spin machine and conviince me.

As I've said before, you can test the validity of the Schmidt / Wallace accounts in the movie Game Change by gut-checking them against externally verifiable evidence about what was happening in that timeframe.

Big Hollywood does just that today, with an excellent article and video clips matching up Palin's behavior in public and on CNN etc against the movie's claim that she was in "catatonic stupors" during the Biden debate prep week. Go see:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/03/14/game-change-mental-instability-meme-crushed-by-facts

It's hooey. Why do you all want to believe it?

This passage stuck out to me:

"Watching that speech at home, I remember thinking, "Obama's in real trouble." Some GOP pundits confessed they had crushes on her. Palin's crowd appeal was enormous. She went overnight from being an obscure governor to being a superstar. Then reality began to sink in: Palin knew virtually nothing about current events, world politics, history, geography. Wallace and Schmidt share their astonishment: She didn't know what the Fed was. She thought Korea was one country. She believed Queen Elizabeth was the British head of government."

I was just curious Mr. Ebert, did you really think "Obama's in real trouble" after watching Palin's speech? Were we watching the same speech? I'm just curious, because that was a speech that offended nearly as many people as it excited, and Obama's campaign raised nearly ten million dollars in the proceeding 24 hours, compared to the one million the Republicans raised.

This was the speech that was filled with outright lies and misrepresentations at every level beyond the feel-good personal story of her life and her praise of McCain? I'm not an ordinary citizen really, I follow politics across the nation with a close passion, and so I was already pretty aware of Palin's situation and background as an Alaskan politician and so nothing that happened truly surprised me. I had read the interesting story about how when she ran for Mayor, of a small town at that, she ran against the incumbent on irrelevant issues like abortion and gun control. I knew she was a loose cannon, and more importantly, I was well-informed enough to notice her outright lies on the bridge to nowhere and her misrepresentation of her selling the governor's airplane at loss, and had the perspective to know that in Alaska, a state where the land route from Anchorage, the population center, to Juneau, the capital, is some 1500 miles long, and where many other areas are too remote to reach by road, that an airplane is a civic necessity for a governor and that this was a poor decision. I even had background on her petty fights with various officials, and how she simply tossed out several minority officials who had high level positions because she wasn't comfortable with them.

There were rumors already going on the web that she might be McCain's pick, so information was thoroughly available to look at what her obvious weaknesses were. But my point was that her speech alone was so filled with lies and misconceptions that I wouldn't have expected you to look at that and afterwards say, "Obama's in real trouble."

Please see the link below for proof that the "Shield Schmidt From Blame" was part of an organized effort. I therefore stand by my assertion that the book and the film were part of the effort to exonerate "poor Steve" from responsibility in the failed campaign.

In other words, this book and subsequent film are nothing but a marketing ploy. It is astounding how easily the left-leaning media are duped. All they had to ask was: "Who has the most to gain from this book?". Was that done--by anyone? NO.

Link: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74094.html

In backwater places like Alaska it is easy to elect a person who does not qualify for leadership. Alaska is very small in population (just over a half million) and a lot of the people there hate government, so will not hesitate to show their contempt by electing a person who is either corrupt or ineffective at doing the job. Also, Alaska really only exists as a political entity because of its strategic importance to the Federal government (mainly, it's proximity to Russia). So, who runs it on the local level is not as important as what the Federal government does with its policy.

Ebert: I think a lot of people would disagree with you about Alaska. I also suspect oil ranks higher in its importance than its proximity to Russia.

I appreciated seeing Mr. Ebert comment on this made-for-HBO movie. Although his primary job is to review theatrical releases, there have been a number of TV movies released over the last few years that have "movie level" production values, actors, writers, directors, etc. (mostly on the premium cable channels). The recent made-for-HBO version of Mildred Pierce starring Kate Winslet and directed by Todd Haynes is a primary example of this. I would love to see Mr. Ebert's thoughts on this film and perhaps provide a compare/contrast with the original Joan Crawford version. Perhaps newspaper management does not want the film critic to review TV movies as it encroaches on the editorial space given to the TV guy, or maybe there is just not enough time for the film critic to see and review a TV movie. Whatever the case may be, I enjoyed the comments.

ya know, my thanks to randy. i wouldn't have thought about attending ebertfest because it wasn't until about a month ago that my schedule was open thanks to deciding that i'm done with teaching and education in general.

so i just went online and snagged a festival pass for ebertfest. from what i read, it seems that the pass also gets me into each film, but i shamefully admit i don't really know what else goes on. now i'll have to get online and snag me a hotel room somewhere, and i'll also have to decide if i'm going to drive out there from NJ or take a train or something.

thanks again, randy, for the mention of it or i'd be missing out. and, i was surprised there were still passes available. considering they went on sale in november, i would have thought they'd be gone by now. let that be a notice to the rest of you - still available, and they'll probably be gone as the fest gets closer.

@Philbot

Barack Obama gave great speeches.(Yes)
He gave incredibly thoughtful and intelligent interviews. (to softball questions by fawning media)
Columbia and Harvard,(OK sure)
the first African-American president of the very prestigious Harvard Law Review, (and who apparently wrote no articles for said Review under his own name, rather unusual)
becoming community organizer when any job in politics and Wall Street was open to him, (not how I like my leaders to get experience, but ok I'll give you that one too)
constitutional law professor, (ok)
Illinois politician, (by getting Alice Palmer thrown off the ballot) United States Senator (By virtue of illegally leaked divorce details of his GOP opponent)

Not a stellar resume IMHO

@Nathan Black: That's not a stellar resume?! Dude, are you a combination of Alfred Einstein and Jason Bourne, coming up with a a Theory of Everything, disproving Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, starring in blockbuster movies, finding a solution to Israel-Palestine, and sleeping with supermodels all on a pile of money? Your standards on what constitutes a good resume might be a tad too high.

But seriously, the media didn't ask him softball questions, he didn't give softball answers, he didn't give softball speeches (his race speech for example). It's kind of hard to get into Columbia and Harvard, unless your last name is Bush, and also takes some skill and talent to be a professor of anything, unless your last name is Gingrich.

Your comment about the Review is a little odd. He edited it. He worked with writers on it. He was chosen not only to on it--out of a class of 500, usually three or four dozen get picked to be on the Review--but became the president, the first black one. That's quite an accomplishment.

JC Squared:
"Please see the link below for proof that the "Shield Schmidt From Blame" was part of an organized effort. I therefore stand by my assertion that the book and the film were part of the effort to exonerate "poor Steve" from responsibility in the failed campaign."

And having read the book and seen the film, I stand by my assertion that anyone who thinks Schmidt and Wallace were 'shielded' from anything needs to try using both their eyes. If I was looking for senior campaign strategists, I'd stay as far away from anyone connected with that bad joke of a campaign as humanly possible.

The headling of this entry got me off on the wrong foot from the beginning, which probably has something to do with my saying so much about it being taken too seriously. But I just browsed by "Game Change" and the quote from the movie (at least) is "The greatest actress in American politics." That sounds more correct and not like it is elevating her or anything; contrary to what some people think; "Greatest actress in American Political history" sounds like overblowing importance to me to try to sell a movie..and it rings false because acting and politics go hand in hand, which implies she is also the most successful female politician in American History, even though she lost: which if true, that she is the most successful, that that means that most successful female Politician in American history was a loser (based on it being about a Presidency she lost); so, even assuming that that is true (which it isn't), that the most successful female politician is one who lost her most importance election, what would make her the most successful woman in political history despite having not been elected? I don't see the significance even if it were true. I'm still watching the movie and the movie itself seems to contradict such a kind of statement. Right now, I've just heard her campaign say that she doesn't have movie star charisma. If she doesn't have movie star charisma, then what kind of greatest actress is that, whether "in American politics" (implying the present and not sounding false) or "in American political history (implying of all time...which sounds false)?

"It was the Republicans who scrutinized Mr. Obama's record."

Small Time: I'm sure Hillary Clinton, her husband and their surrogates with be amused to find out they're Republicans. Seriously, I know ideologues don't let reality get in the way of a good pity party, but this is getting silly...

Hi Roger,

On Obama choosing to go to Chicago and become a community organizer, didn't any of the timeline and influences that I laid out in my comment affect your understanding of his choice at all? Because, it makes sense to me - if you study his life story.

Ebert:... I realize that offends right-wing selfishness, but give it a try.

Really, it's no more valid to attribute selfishness to right-wingers than it is to attribute only superhuman altruism to Obama.

We all want to be good citizens and help not only our families but our neighbors. I attribute good will and good intentions to Team Liberal, including President Obama. Socialists believe that they are helping their fellow man, as do us Tea Party types. We just have disagreements on the causes of the ills, on rights and responsiblilities, and on the best way to help. Significant policy differences, no doubt.

I was thinking as I read your comment of a fine man that is a personal hero of mine in real life. He worked hard all his life, from an entry level position to management. He came home from the army as a young man, built his own house with his own hands, married, and raised four children in that house. He took his family to church faithfully each Sunday and more. He gave countless hours to teen groups and watched many grow up into responsible adults with their own families. He spent hours of his own time working as a volunteer at the rescue mission. He spent thousands of his own money helping families directly in times of trouble. He was truly a compassionate conservative, and as unselfish a man as you ever want to meet. He's actually typical of the Christian social conservatives that I'll spend time at church with this morning. But, because he didn't spend his time agitating the government for entitlements, and without meeting him, you would label him as a "selfish right-winger".

I have no doubt that community organizers like Obama believed that his work was in service to others. You can point to his work on asbestos removal in a housing project or winning a jobs training center - and I'll say yes. Good work, in service to others.

He chose that work as an effort to advance the socialist cause in America. You should believe him in his book when he talks about his affinity for hanging out with "structural Marxists", etc. You should believe others in the movement who testify to Obama's engagement and study of socialism. You should evaluate the timeline of events, and see that he changed course of his studies at Columbia in the same time he was attending the Socialist Scholars Conferences and meeting fellow travelers like Rev. Wright there.

I have a problem with his activities that are related to radicalism. His involvement with the New Party and with the Midwest Academy. His training of ACORN. His pre-Occupy links with sit-in attacks on CitiBank. His work with Bill Ayers on foundational boards like the Chicago Annenberg Challenge to fund the socialist groups in Chicago. It's not all a record of altruism. It's more a record of radicalism.

Just read Radical-in-Chief already. :)

Roger, do you not see the brainwashed-speak that Randy doesn't realize he says over and over again?

It all starts from Fox morphing the word "bias" to mean "brainwashing" and how insidiously that means that Fox viewers must "bias" (brainwash) themselves to Fox (I've already explained earlier why that works: about how we are negativistics creatures etc.).

With this brainwashed mindset, you don't read things, or be open-minded about things, or just glance at things, you "bias" (brainwash) yourself to ideas.

Basically, Fox has them thinking this: "Biasing" (brainwashing) is bad except when you "bias" (brainwash) yourself to Fox.

So, everything is about brainwashing themselves; Fox just tells them which way to go with brainwashing...but the subject is always about self-brainwashing.

Example, Randy always talks about this "liberal biasing" where people only know what is "biased" (brainwashed) into them, but "biasing" with Fox is okay.

So, with him there are only two choices there: brainwash yourself to the liberal media, or brainwash yourself to Fox.

So, basically everything he is REALLY saying is "Oh, so you're brainwashing yourself to liberal brainwashing, but not Fox brainwashing, eh?...because Fox has me to believe that brainwashing is only ok when it comes from them."

With this mindset, you don't just mull over ideas, or think about ideas, or just glance at ideas; No, you "bias" (brainwash) yourself to ideas: and everything but Fox "bias" (brainwashing) is okay (but notice how brainwashing is the only thing on the table); in fact, you are most likely the devil if you don't (this is what Fox manipulates,that part of us that scapegoats because we don't like or know why our unconscious is telling us things about ourselves we don't want to believe).

Anyway, so, if you read or think about anything or just glance at anything other than Fox "biasing" (brainwashing), you are being brainwashed.....which is always bad...devil work is afoot. ..except when that brainwashing is by Fox brainwashing the only good kind.

Okay, I could come up with a million examples, but I'll just talk about what Randy's been saying last: but you'll notice the same pattern in all of them.

If you look carefully at what he is saying, what he is saying is exactly what I just said, that "biasing" is bad except for when it comes to Fox (in other words, brainwashing).

When Randy is saying that Obama was "influenced" by this socialist person or that organization or whatever, what he is really saying is "Don't you know that you must brainwash yourself to everything you read?" So, when somebody, God forbid, reads something other than Fox, that means that they've just been "biased" (which is always wrong, except for when Fox does it...in other words, with Fox everything that doesn't come from them is brainwashing, which is bad, and they need their brainwashing to know about that...so now brainwashing is good).

See when somebody studies something, maybe even something radical or whatever, there's no thinking about it for yourself, you've just been "biased" by the liberals, and the only way to get out of this horrible thing of "biasing" is to "bias" yourselves to Fox.

You also probably have noticed how the answer always goes back to his "biasing"; for instance the way he keeps telling people they need to read this book and that book and watch this movie and that movie.

So, there's no thinking about things for yourself in that world. If you've read anything other than Fox, you've just been "biased" and can't think it over for yourself; you're done..because "biasing' is bad...and it's because Fox's "bias" told me that that I need to go "bias" myself from Fox, lest I become "Bad bad Biased" rather than from Fox where I am "Bad good biased."

So, if Obama had this kind of professor or went to this organization, there's no "Obama thought it about it for himself and decided..."...No, there's only that Obama has been "biased" and therefore he can't think for himself now; he's a goner now, because "biasing" means brainwashing...and it's only because of Fox's "Biasing" that I will continue to know that "biasing" is bad.

I had a crude comment that no doubt went to the spam folder, but what it was this....

"Your boot-licking is not even worth the boot-licking of my boot-licking cult."

That's basically what is being said.

That's what the brainwashed (and Randy) is saying.

He's saying Obama's boot-licking is not even worth the boot-licking of his boot-licking cult.

Or in other words, you'll notice with Randy's comments that he doesn't take issue with things on principle (though it may sound like it a little bit). For instance, look at his recent comments about this movie. He's not offended that someone is "slandering" on principle, or that they might be dishonest, on principle or whatever on principle.

A quote:

"Really, folks, if you're linking or tweeting positive things about this political hit piece and slander I ask you to reconsider"

See? It wasn' about taking issue with it on principle because it all came back down again to "just don't say ANYTHING positive about it" or get it out there into "biased" (brainwashed) land...unless it is Fox "biasing."

Those are the only two choices...bad brainwashing or good brainwashing..and the good brainwashing is about how the bad brainwashing need only be remedied by the good brainwashing.

So, if you watch a certain program, or just accidentally look at something other than Fox, you've just been "biased" (brainwashed, which is bad), can't think about it for yourself, and need to be "biased' (bad...uh, except for with Fox..who told us all about how bad "biasing", or brainwashing is, so we need to "bias" ourselves to Fox).

Basically, if you've looked at anything other than Fox in your life, you've just been "biased" (brainwashed) into being the devil and need to "bias" (brainwash) yourself to Fox to get out of being the devil.

Hey, did you just flip the channel by CNN. That's it. You're toast.

Get me my "Brainwashing is bad: how to brainwash yourself to Fox kit."

See, it really is...

"your boot-licking is not even worth the boot-licking of my boot-licking cult."

Hi Roger,

Some points on your comment:

It points out that Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" is not ideological but strategic, and is used by the Tea Party.

There is no way that Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" is in use by the Tea Party.

The Tea Party was an outgrowth of one event, the crash of 2008. It crystallized around Rick Santelli's rant on the floor of the stock exchange, a rant about bailouts and paying for other peoples bad mortgages. The Tea Party worked within traditional electoral politics. We ran candidates within the party system, and won. We won spectacularly in the 2010 House races, which was the last time the American people spoke nationally about the failed policies of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama.

Alinsky's rules are not about running candidates in elections. If you think so, then you know nothing about Alinsky's rules. They were for grasroots activism in local battles. They were for the shakedown artists known as community organizers to do battle with banks and utilities and such. Pick a target and freeze it. That would be a bank President. Target him and ridicule him and sit in at his house until he starts granting subprime mortgages (which caused the crash of 2008). See Obama's work in 1992 against Citibank for a prime example.

Randy doesn't believe, for that matter, that the Tea Party is radical.

You know, Roger, I have changed my mind on that. Professor John Haas changed it on a Dave Van Dyke Facebook thread discussion.

I've decided that we are so far down the path of socialism, that so many people want free stuff from the government over liberty, that in fact myself and the Tea Party are in the minority in the USA in 2012. That we are the radicals.

I see that in the latest dustup with the Obama administration, through the office of Sec of HHS Sebelius, mandating that a private insurance complany provide a product (contraception) and that they do it free of charge. Demanding it, from the White House! Every American that cares about liberty should rise up and confront that tyranny. But no, the entire Democrat established lined up behind tyranny under the banner of "women's health". Well, there is always a reason to surrender liberty.

I guess I am the radical. I can live with that.

Nor can he see himself in any way as disadvantaged, as I learned when he condemned Obamacare, which would (and will be) of great benefit to his own family.

My family does indeed have serious healthcare needs. Both my immediate family - which I cover with a solid employer health plan that I pay premiums for - and for my extended family such as my elderly father - who is covered under some government programs.

I am not averse to health care reforms in our country.

ObamaCare is not it. It is a monstrosity. It will explode our debt and erode our liberty. And your team pushed it down America's throat in the dead of night with the slimmest of votes in each chamber.

It's a 2700 page bureaucratic nightmare written by lobbyists that nobody read. It was lie right from the start.

It was a budget lie first and foremost. That it would be under $1T in cost was a lie. CBO has now moved that estimate up to $1.7T, and if you think that is the final number, you must be an Obama supporter. It will explode our deficit.

But, if you are an Obama supporter or a labor union you can get a waiver. Which is a disgrace that undermines the validity of the program in the first place. Why can't you see that?

And the President lied when he said that "if you like your current coverage you can keep it." That's a lie, as illustrated by the news story this week that said millions of employees will lose their health care plans under ObamaCare. The program is designed to crash private insurerers to eventually force it to single-payer government control of health care. It's just one more dependency trap of the statists that run our government.

ObamaCare is an abomination for a free country like America. It must be overturned. Hopefully SCOTUS will reach the right decision and throw it out this Summer.

Then we can get about the business of electing conservatives to the oval office, the Senate, and more in the House. Then we can begin health care reform that does not bankrupt us or enslave us.

Ebert: Randy, consider this. When Obama, with his c.v., had unlimited job opportunities in the law or on Wall Street, doesn't his choice of community organizing show impressive idealism? Please share with us what you think he did as a community organizer that was not exemplary? He was trying to be of service to others. I realize that offends right-wing selfishness, but give it a try.

The response from Randy, on one side, and Keith Carrizosa, on the other, pretty much lay out the diametrically opposed arguments regarding your challenge. Both miss the point that is most important to examine as our nation descends into a global pit of despair- this is not about partisan politics (both parties are equally corrupt and pander to the puppet masters of payola) or conservative/liberal ideologies (both wings are blindly intolerant of legitimate discourse.) The defining argument we must address relates to our identity as a nation and a society. Do we as a people support individual freedoms or do we support centralized planning? They are mutually exclusive avenues. Both Obama and Bush before him have taken our country down a path of centralized planning and ever increasing government intervention. The resulting economic strangulation from expanding deficits and bloated regulations leaves us without resources to implement the type of public services associated with community activism on behalf of those in need.

The issue with community organizers is not their intent or idealism- it is with whom they stick with the bill for their activities. It would not offend me if Obama cared for the disadvantaged and worked on their behalf (which I do not believe to be true) but it does offend me when he uses federal resources to achieve his goals. Centralized planning at the federal /national level has one, and only one, eventual outcome- the implementation of martial law to enforce the mandated redistribution of resources.

Please share with us any historical nation that has effectively imposed full scale central planning without the aid of the military and the complete revocation of individual freedom.

Hello Randy,

Saul Allinsky, Rule 11:
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

For example, see the Tea Party use of :'Obamacare', instead of the real name: 'The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act'

You really are a radical! Naughty boy!

Best regards,

Michel Lamontagne
Otterburn Park, Qc

Short version of my last comment: thinking about things for yourself is not on the table because brainwashing is the only thing on the table (or "biasing").

"Biasing" (brainwashing) is bad and since Fox has told us "biasing" is bad and also just happens to be everywhere else (the liberal "bias") but Fox, now "biasing" is good since Fox has told how bad "biasing" is and how it is everywhere else but Fox.

So, that's why with Obama studying with this professor or whoever, there's no question of Obama thinking things over for himself; thinking things over for yourself is never on the table...just "biasing", which is bad, but which is now a good thing since Fox told us how bad "biasing" is and is everywhere and how we need them to keep "biasing" us.

Hi Roger.

It is fascinating to me how differently we view groups like the Tea Party or Occupy.

I read an interview with Donald Sutherland about his role in The Hunger Games as President Snow.

Sutherland thought this would be an important political movie, and he saw the heroine's story lining up with the Occupy movement, and was waxing eloquent on the SDS and the Port Huron manifesto. He saw it as a rebellion against the 1 percenters in the Capitol. I can see that.

I read all three books, and saw it as a Tea Party story. It's not about the one-percenters per se. It's about a bloated Capitol having tributes sent in from the Districts and then killing them in the games, because they can, and to remind them who is in control. The Feds take in all the goods from the districts and squander it. Sounds like Washington DC to me. So why is Occupy in NYC?

Randy,

You have made so many irrational and completely unsupportable statements on this blog that I usually just ignore you, but the following

"That would be a bank President. Target him and ridicule him and sit in at his house until he starts granting subprime mortgages (which caused the crash of 2008). See Obama's work in 1992 against Citibank for a prime example."

Can you please point to one sit-in for sub-prime mortgages?

This ignores the fact that loan defaults by people who were pressured into mortgages they could not afford is not the primary reason for the economic collapse of 2008. (Hint: It's what the people profiting off those mortgages did with them)

since randy mentioned the hunger games...

roger, i thought you didn't release reviews of a movie until the date of the movie's release and not earlier because you didn't want your review - if negative - to keep people out of the theater on day one. today your review of the hunger games is on your site, but the movie doesn't come out until friday.

did you change that policy, or did i misunderstand?

Ebert: The studio lifted its usual review embargo. If you violate it, you can be banished from screenings.

The debate rages on -
for and against “socialist” Obama
for and against “selfish” right wingers

continuing down this path only distracts from the real culprits who are taking down our country. Yes politicians (of both parties) are culpable but they are mere marionettes

We have discussed the greatest actress in American political history- now we should listen to the greatest political comedian in American history - a transcript of his own words:

"But there’s a reason. There’s a reason. There’s a reason for this, there’s a reason education SUCKS, and it’s the same reason it will never, ever, EVER be fixed.

It’s never going to get any better, don’t look for it, be happy with what you’ve got.
Because the owners, the owners of this country don't want that. I'm talking about the real owners now, the BIG owners! The Wealthy… the REAL owners! The big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions.

Forget the politicians. They are irrelevant. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice! You have OWNERS! They OWN YOU. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls.

They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying, lobbying, to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I'll tell you what they don’t want:

They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. Thats against their interests.

Thats right. They don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they’re getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago. They don’t want that!

You know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shitty jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it, and now they’re coming for your Social Security money. They want your retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street, and you know something? They’ll get it. They’ll get it all from you sooner or later cause they own this fucking place! Its a big club, and you ain’t in it! You, and I, are not in the big club.

By the way, its the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy. The table has tilted folks. The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care! Good honest hard-working people; white collar, blue collar it doesn’t matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard-working people continue, these are people of modest means, continue to elect these rich cock suckers who don’t give a fuck about you….they don’t give a fuck about you… they don’t give a FUCK about you.

They don’t care about you at all… at all… AT ALL. And nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. Thats what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick thats being jammed up their assholes everyday, because the owners of this country know the truth.

Its called the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it."

From the wisdom of the late, great George Carlin

Hi Roger,

I enjoyed your review of The Hunger Games, which came out today. I can't wait to see the movie this week.

I had one thought on this part:

This results in a television production that apparently holds the nation spellbound and keeps the citizens content.

Some context, from the books:

Yes, the residents watch the Games, like a reality show. But, they don't want to. It's required watching. The districts are both traumatized by and resigned to the Games.

The Games serve a purpose: to refresh a message from the Capitol to the districts - which are as you said "powerless satellites". The message to the disticts who once rebelled against the Capitol and were put down is: Don't rebel again. We control you and will crush you. The Capitol makes that point annually by compelling them to send two at random to be wantonly killed in a spectacle. We can kill your kids, and you can't stop us. That's the wound that the Capitol rubs each year to refresh the message.

I can't help but think of it as a trilogy, since I read all 3 books. There's a line in the third book that summarizes it all for me as an anti-war themed trilogy. I remember the line as:

"What does it say about societies that settle their differences by killing each other's children?"

Isn't that what we do in wars now with our young armies?

If I could stand in line this week for the midnight premier, I would. Can't.

The books were not only addictive and a good read, they were thought provoking on war, and on liberty vs. subservience to the "Capitol".

This one's for Dave Van Dyke.
Up above a ways, I mentioned your Electoral College math from "The Debate That Didn't Happen" thread, and how I wasn't able to get the numbers to add up right.
I mentioned a blog I had visited back in '08 that had an interactive map, resolving to find it and try again.
And I did.
270towin.com
The map still works perfectly, and I went right to work with your numbers.
To start with, 270 has thirteen (13) states up for grabs: your ten, plus Michigan, Wisconsin, and New Mexico.
The current 270 totals are :
Obama (D): 198
TBD (R): 181
The three extra states mentioned above have a total of 31 ECVs, so I'll guess here that you've got those in the Obama column.
That means you've misplaced 22 ECVs for the Red side. Since there at least three states tha have 11 ECVs, I'll guess that you forgot to count two of them when you made your initial count.
Or some combination of the others that added up to 22. *shrug*
Oh well, no harm done.
Anyway, when I refound 270towin yesterday, I went to work to find out if I could still combine the as-yet-uncolored states into that 269-269 tie I'm always harping about.
Within the first five minutes, I was able to come up with four different state combinations that yielded a tie vote.
Then, today, after I'd located your old posting, I decided to try again, this time assigning your figures to MI, WI, and NM, leaving ten states open.
I got two ties there.
All of you can join the fun here, and come up with your own scenarios, which you can base on statistical fluency, wishful thinking, or both.
You can also use a drop-down feature to look at Electoral Votes for all past Presidential elections, for comparative purposes.

270towin.com

And no, I don't own a piece of the site. I get nothing out of this except a chance to make all the rest of you crazy. *nyah-hah-hah*

Now facing a 92% chance of losing to Mormon Mitt, our blessed brother Richard John Santorum, speaking in tongues, descries again to wage holy war against Satan. Lets see you godless devil dupes lobby against that holy ordained mandate.

Praise holy brother Masters and pass the mustard seeds!

Highly amused at the "Never going to read you again" comments and the "You're a Palin-hater" responses. I gather that anything less than a scathing review of the film and a celebration of Palin would garner these results. Also funny are the Obama comments--even though this is not a film about him. Some people will never get it.

@Small Time: Pardon the lateness of my response; I thought everyone had moved on from this blog post, not realizing that people are still arguing today.

As a European Liberal, yes, I am disappointed by Mr. Obama's centrism and moderate Republicanism. I wish he had acted like FDR during the first hundred days, made the stimulus bigger (I like Paul Krugman), proposed some massive infrastructure spending and generally did not dawdle on the jobs economy. There is a new book called The Escape Artists that criticizes his economic team for not moving fast enough. I haven't read it, but look forward to doing so.

The stimulus based on the data averted a greater catastrophe and kept people employed. It did not create as many jobs as it should have. That's why it should have been bigger. The health care law is still market-based but at least it doesn't cap coverage, doesn't discriminate against pre-existing conditions and insures a lot more people who wouldn't have it otherwise. Since I am a European Liberal--I'd vote for Britain's Labour Party but even the Tories are more liberal than the liberals and a a great deal more liberal than American Republicans--I would want a Single Payer health care law. Despite not being American nor British, I was born in England, stayed in the hospital for about a month because I was a very tiny preemie, and in addition to my health care my parents received excellent advice on how to take care of me, with little charge. So in this instance I admit to being biased, but biased in favor of the right thing.. The United States can a find a way to make it work. Unlike Paul Ryan in the new Republican budget, I believe in preserving Medicare, and at the federal level.

This President has in my lifetime been the most locked in by the policies of his predecessor, and the most obstinate Congress that exists only to thwart him, never mind that he proposed plans that are Republican. The filibuster is a dangerous thing. I believe he might have been more liberal if allowed. If reelected, we'll see. He does have flaws, but he hasn't been allowed to work, and the alternate is a man who lies. A lot. Check out Steve Benen's multi-part listing of the lies on Rachel Maddow's show. And her show is worth looking into. We don't know what we're getting with Romney. So I will take the frustrated and disappointing current guy who has gotten stuff done( Andrew Sullivan's Newsweek article) to the guy who keeps misrepresenting the president.

Bottom line is that I wish this country was far more liberal than it is. Like Europe but America-specific.. Remember that our recession caused theirs and so led to austerity. These may sound like tired liberal talking points to you, and not the objective truth, so if you know credible factual content that will change my mind, that I am not aware of, please, give me some links. I would love to change my mind.

The only means of strengthening one's intelligence is to make up one's mind about nothing--to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts..
-John Keats

"

Tammy Metzler: [her campaign speech] Who cares about this stupid election? We all know it doesn't matter who gets elected president of Carver. Do you really think it's going to change anything around here; make one single person smarter or happier or nicer? The only person it does matter to is the one who gets elected. The same pathetic charade happens every year, and everyone makes the same pathetic promises just so they can put it on their transcripts to get into college. So vote for me, because I don't even want to go to college, and I don't care, and as president I won't do anything. The only promise I will make is that if elected I will immediately dismantle the student government, so that none of us will ever have to sit through one of these stupid assemblies again!
[Student body erupts in huge cheers]
Tammy Metzler: Or don't vote for me... who cares? Don't vote at all!
[more cheers]

Looks like the thread has turned from discussing the 2008 election to commenting on the 2012 election and who will do what based on who wins the election-

Actually the winner has already been determined. With the announcement that SCYTL, based in Barcelona, Spain, acquired 100 percent of SOE Software, the leading software provider of election management solutions in the United States, it has become apparent that the real winner is Balderton Capital Management, based in UK. SCYTL will now process and report election results for over 900 jurisdictions in the United States and Balderton Capital is the primary investor in SCYTL. Connect the dots…. Electronic voting machines (with no paper audit trails) are linked to servers controlled by a foreign company and report back the voting “results” that must be accepted by the citizens of the United States. In plain language we no longer can validate the accuracy of any election and will be left with the “winner” as determined by the controlling interests of a company based outside of the United States… and so who is in control of Balderton and therefore in control of SCYTL and therefore is in control of determining our elected officials?

Balderton Capital partners:
Tim Bunting - was partner at Goldman Sachs.
Mark Evans - was partner at Goldman Sach.
Charlotte Swerling - has ties to Tony Blair (who is now on the payroll of JP Morgan)

Yes folks, those lovable elite bankers who have stolen trillions of dollars from the tax payers have found a more convenient way to do business. Rather than lobby and bribe endless politicians and bureaucrats they have now simply purchased direct control of the election process - simple and less expensive.

Hi Roger.

So, what will be the Game Change issue of the 2012 election?

A VP pick? Maybe. Rubio on the GOP side, certainly.

SCOTUS throwing out ObamaCare in June? Yes.

Obama's conversation this week with Russian president Medvedev, caught on an open mic, about keeping their plans on the down low until after his "last election" when he's no longer accountable to voters? If we had an actual watchdog media that would be a game changer. "I will transmit this information to Vladimir."

Occupy violence at the conventions?

The Trayvon Martin shooting?

What else?

Talk about your game changer, how bout Romney/Palin2012? Mormon Mitt and Mama Moose would be an unstoppable combo.

Interesting how the Today Show called in Sarah Palin today when they wanted a ratings win over Katie Couric guest hosting over at ABC.

Were people talking about Palin today, or Couric. Score.

The Garden of Eden sat in the shadow of the Big Rock Candy Mountain near a creek meandering through a grove of peppermint trees.

In today's CNN poll, 60% vote experience as the #1 factor in choosing the 2012 Republican VP nominee.

Only one candidate is experienced in being a VP running mate.

The second determining factor cited in poll is candidate hair quality superiority.

Sarah Palin then is the overriding best choice for this year's Republican ticket.

So, has Game Change played itself out on HBO yet? Everyone get their Sarah-bashing fix from the hit piece?

Moving on.

Sarah can outlast you.

I finally got to see Game Change on HBO. (credits are still rolling).

What a piece of crap.

That's my review.

Our Sarah just recommended war hero Rep. Alan West as the perfect rogue running mate for milquetoast Mitt. This great Florida patriot just outed "78-81 members of the Democratic Party that are members of the Communist Party." Take that you lame streamers!!!

"Sarah Palin Picks Allen West for Vice President; McCain Picks Palin again."

slate.com (April 4, 2012)

Patriot West echoing former VP candidate, Senator John Iselin, responds by outing those despicable commie Democrats still lurking in Congress.

With few exceptions, the Alaskans I have met can be divided into those that never did like Sarah Palin, and those that feel very betrayed.

Sarah Palin will soon make her acting debut as crazy mama in new CARRIE remake. (IMDb news)