Page 1 of 2

Commander In Chief is a Test Poll of Hillary's viability

Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 3:59 pm
by sindatur
Not a legitimate Conspiracy Theory yet, but, a couple people have mentioned that Hollywood and Hillary are working together on "Commander in Chief" starring Geena Davis, to see how the ratings go, as a guage for Hillary to base her decision on to run or not.

Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:06 pm
by The Laughing Man
The Esmer lives in NY, and Hillary ROCKS! if the polls here have anything to say about it, it will be a landslide! 8)

Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:42 pm
by High Lord Tolkien
Looks great. [sarcasm]


www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110007338


A TV Show and Its Political Party
Is Hillary Clinton the next Geena Davis?

BY JOHN H. FUND
Friday, September 30, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

When Margaret Thatcher led Britain in the 1980s, there was much speculation about women finally breaking the glass ceiling of America's governing class. There was also much horror, in certain circles, that they might share Mrs. Thatcher's politics. It would have made an interesting TV show, a Thatcher-like figure putting some spine into her male subordinates, telling them not to go wobbly and otherwise keeping standards up.

No such luck. A few years later we got "The West Wing" instead. But the glass-ceiling speculation has not gone away. Indeed, it is more intense than ever. Political pundits speculate endlessly, for instance, about a possible Hillary-Condi match-up in 2008. Thus the mood was positively giddy at last week's parties celebrating "Commander in Chief," ABC's new series about a female president who assumes office after the incumbent dies.

The series pits Academy Award-winner Geena Davis against the patriarchal world of national politics until her "You Go, Girl!" attitude puts to rest the doubts of her many detractors. The creator of "Commander in Chief," Rod Lurie, is apparently trying to broaden the show's appeal by promising that he won't be using it as a soapbox for his admittedly liberal views. He is quick to note that Ms. Davis isn't playing a Democrat. Instead she is an independent who landed on a Republican ticket in order to offset a conservative candidate's low approval rating among women.

Mr. Lurie insists that red-state viewers need not shun the show. He admits that he "can't write to a belief system that I can't swallow myself," but he says that he has hired some conservative writers to make up for his deficit. Not that a balanced approach was evident at last week's series-celebrating parties, in Washington and New York, hosted by the feminist White House Project.

Marie Wilson, the founder of the White House Project, told attendees how she struggled for years to convince Hollywood to do a show about a woman in the Oval Office. "We offered a prize, we offered to pay for a script. But they still didn't think it would interest people," she lamented. "Then like out of some Zen moment they suddenly decided the time was now." And maybe the time is now: The latest Rasmussen Poll finds that more than three-quarters of voters are comfortable with the idea of a female president. All the Hillary-Condi talk clearly means something.

But Condi had nothing to do with the conversations at the White House Project parties. Attendees made it abundantly clear that they see the show as a liberal fantasy. Much as "The West Wing" portrayed the White House that liberals wish Bill Clinton had run, "Commander in Chief" will look forward to something resembling a Hillary Clinton presidency, or so its fans presume.

After the Washington premiere, Steve Cohen, a writer for the series who was Mrs. Clinton's deputy White House communications director, was mobbed by the senator's fans. One of the few Republicans in attendance, Rep. Katherine Harris of Florida, noted that the show "is softening up the country for Hillary." In a postscreening panel discussion, Eleanor Clift of Newsweek agreed that "Commander in Chief" would help Sen. Clinton. "It's so idealistic, calling us to a higher purpose," she told the audience.

Idealistic to some, stereotypical to others. We'll let the critics decide. Suffice it to say, for now, that the first episode involved an effort by the dying (Republican) president to shunt aside the vice president (Ms. Davis) so that a malevolently conservative House speaker can take over. (Right, that would happen.) A member of the vice president's staff says that the speaker stands for "the return of book burning, creationism in the classroom and invading every Third World country." The statement is not meant as a compliment. For balance, the new President Allen will supposedly have a few views that Mr. Lurie says are conservative, like abstinence education--although even Hillary has endorsed that one.

Mr. Lurie acknowledges that his TV series is a direct descendant of his film "The Contender," which starred Joan Allen as a Democratic senator who becomes a piƱata for conservatives during her confirmation hearings to replace a deceased vice president. This movie was such an egregiously crude version of the "virtuous liberal vs. conservative slime-ball" genre that Gary Oldman, one of the movie's stars, called it "a piece of propaganda" designed to help Al Gore. The movie was released a month before the 2000 election.

Mr. Lurie recognizes that his show should stay "centered" to have the best chance at commercial success. But even he acknowledges the temptation to tug left. Last year he told the Baltimore Sun that "the world has become so partisan--and I'm as guilty of this as the next guy--that there is always a dark side of the force." President Allen, meet Darth Vader.

www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110007338

Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:19 pm
by sindatur
Oh, so I guess it is a legitimate Conspiracy Theory afterall.

Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 6:44 pm
by sgt.null
God forbid we let wimmin run anything. the white men are runnin' thangs jess fine!

Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:24 am
by danlo
Really, those whacky white men and their wampum! :P

Now they're raised a stink on the radio about a VP candidate on the show (ala Bill Richardson) being hispanic and the Govenor of New Mexico...pushing his agenda too...

Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:31 am
by sgt.null
we must keep on focus. white men will take care of you. because we know what is best for us, erm, i mean you.

Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 7:42 am
by Avatar
Weird.

--A

Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 6:18 pm
by Edge
Obviously, women would do a better job of running the world than men.

'Cause they're caring, and nurturing, and in touch with the cycles of the earth, and all those other stereotypes.

And after all, there must be a reason that Nature is regarded as a complete Mother...

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 3:05 am
by sgt.null
hurricanes? says it right in the title. maybe we should let puppies run the earth?

Re: Commander In Chief is a Test Poll of Hillary's viability

Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 8:29 pm
by covenantparadox
sindatur wrote:Not a legitimate Conspiracy Theory yet, but, a couple people have mentioned that Hollywood and Hillary are working together on "Commander in Chief" starring Geena Davis, to see how the ratings go, as a guage for Hillary to base her decision on to run or not.
I hadn't heard that one but I do know that NOW President Kim Gandy applauded this program's debut in her weekly column at the NOW (National Organization for Women") website www.NOW.org
NOW
and NOW-PAC (political action committee) have been staunch HC supporters in the past. Introduction of this subject via popular media can't do any harm to Hillary's career as long as its well handled. ! I'm continually amazed by the large number of people who find the concept of a female president discomforting. Why wouldn't/shouldn't Ms. Clinton's supporters use this tried and true method of conceptual introduction.
Personally, I would be surprized if the Clinton camp weren't
watching and (possibly) influencing program decisions. They'd be foolish not to capitalize on it and fools they ain't

Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 9:11 pm
by Alynna Lis Eachann
You want a conspiracy? Check this out: The only reason anybody's talking seriously about HC running for president in 2008 is because the Republicans think it's a good idea. As in, they're confident that if she runs, their candidate will win hands-down. They feel she's too leftist for the country's taste, so they're trying to stir up interest in her to polarize or mislead the Democratic party and bolster their own chances of winning.

Face it folks, the only way we're getting a Democrat in office in 2008 is if he or she is two clicks right of center.

Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 9:59 pm
by The Laughing Man
I think there is a good chance that the country will "run like hell" AWAY from the "right", based on where they have currently "taken us". ;)

Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:27 am
by Half Hand
Yes,for balance we need Ralph Nader. :lol:

Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:31 am
by covenantparadox
Alynna Lis Eachann wrote:You want a conspiracy? Check this out: The only reason anybody's talking seriously about HC running for president in 2008 is because the Republicans think it's a good idea. As in, they're confident that if she runs, their candidate will win hands-down. They feel she's too leftist for the country's taste, so they're trying to stir up interest in her to polarize or mislead the Democratic party and bolster their own chances of winning.

Face it folks, the only way we're getting a Democrat in office in 2008 is if he or she is two clicks right of center.
Those darn Republicans may not be smarter than the American people after all. One never knows. However, you make a strong point because right now red states trump blue states in electoral vote count but even a Dem who is 2 clicks right of center would be a whole lot more likely to preserve some rights I hold very dear and would be less likely to name his/herself Czar on January 21st. :P

Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 5:13 am
by sgt.null
and hell, if we don't vote the right way, the cons can just get themselved courted into office, no?

Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:51 pm
by Cail
Of course, the people in Florida who couldn't figure out their ballots had nothing to do with that.....

Come on Dennis, that was 5 years ago. Let it go.

Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:45 pm
by sgt.null
yes Cail, the cons stealing an election is something we should all forget. let's forget Vietnam and Watergate and anything bad that happens. that way when it happens again, we can all wonder what the hell happened.

Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:46 pm
by The Laughing Man
:goodpost:


Cail wrote:Of course, the people in Florida who couldn't figure out their ballots had nothing to do with that.....

Come on Dennis, that was 5 years ago. Let it go.
The Supreme Court ordered the counting stopped, Cail. And they had no jurisdiction to do so. :roll:

Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:53 pm
by lucimay
unbelievably Cail said:
Of course, the people in Florida who couldn't figure out their ballots had nothing to do with that.....

Come on Dennis, that was 5 years ago. Let it go.
let's give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he didn't mean it in the broad, sweeping way we're taking it...

Image


not supposed to forGET mistakes, Cail man, supposed to LEARN from them