Thursday, March 13, 2008

Off topic, but top of mind: this time Spitzer, next time . . . Clinton?

Is anyone else thinking what I'm thinking? Yes, Eliot Spitzer is a hypocrite and an adulterer, and is guilty of his crimes, and was no longer tenable as Governor of New York. Still . . . the government's intense pursuit of this case is intriguingly at odds with its actual social value (if they were really interested in discouraging prostitution, for example, they'd only have to pick up a copy of the Phoenix to catch some leads - they'd hardly have to track Eliot Spitzer's cash transactions!). And let's just say the Bush Justice Department has a certain reputation for targeting Democrats rather than Republicans . . .

. . . So something tells me an elaborate attempt at a sting is almost certainly in the works for Bill Clinton. Yes, we've all heard of Canadian MP (and F.O.B.) Belinda Stronach (with the Billster, above), who for a time was rumored as his current squeeze; we all presumed the Karl Rove slime machine was geared up for a reprise of that rumor. But what are the odds that Belinda's been Bill's only hobby for the last few years - and let's be frank, what are the odds that he has, perhaps, moved large sums of cash around, catching the eye of federal regulators . . ? To move in with federal charges against Clinton would be, I have to admit, a truly superb October surprise (and right up Turdblossom's alley). But if such plans are in the works, why tilt your hand with Spitzer? Does Spitzergate indicate that Bushco doesn't actually have anything fresh on Bill?

Oh, who knows. But this is the kind of moment when I suddenly start to care a lot less about Obama's lack of experience in, or enthusiasm for, real world politics . . .


  1. Don't forget credit where credit is due... There is a whole ensemble at the BCA bringing this play to life and each and every person has a valuble role in this piece. Pointing out someone who is a youthful phenom or someone you have worked with does not suffice on this production. This is a great cast of characters from the Scientist and "Hippy" at the beginning, through all the Godly appearances to the full ensemble portraying as one the concepts of the piece. It would be nice for a review to not contain the differences from the original or even compare. The object of the theatre is to promote our interpretations not to copy everything that ever happened on Broadway. It was a great show and I give my apprecation (since I am just one person as well) to the hard work and dedication of the full group from the technical and administrative to the understudies on this enjoyable expression! Keep up the good work!

  2. Sorry, honey, but you're not in college anymore, and I don't hand out gold stars for effort. And my review does "suffice" - perforce, I'm afraid. Indeed, I think most disinterested observers would agree I went easy on Metamorphoses - there are one or two weak performers in it, whom I didn't mention, and the "ensemble" could hardly bear comparison with the crackling casts currently on view in Some Men, The Clean House, and The Scene. It's rather easy to understand, therefore, why you seem to think a reviewer's role is not "to compare" but to simply "promote our interpretations." Only that's the publicist you're thinking of.