Bryce Zabel's FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH

Primary Colors (1998) -vs- The Candidate (1972)

Absolute Politics Corrupts Absolutely

The Smackdown. With history being made in the Obama-Clinton battle, it seems right to take a glance in the rear-view mirror of our campaign bus and check out two classic election films. "The Candidate" really established the genre 35 years ago, giving us Robert Redford at the height of his charismatic on-screen presence as a JFK-like California senatorial candidate who wants to run on issues but ends up running on great hair and piercing eyes. A quarter of a century later, we got "Primary Colors" with John Travolta standing in for that horny guy who couldn't keep it zipped on the campaign trail or in the Oval Office. So those are the two nominees on our ballot. Let's see who's got the goods to win this cinematic election -- Redford/Kennedy or Travolta/Clinton.

The Challenger. The film comes from quite a pedigree: political writer Joe Klein wrote the book (originally as "Anonymous"), and the film was written by Elaine May and directed by Mike Nichols. Everything inside is paper-thin disguised as being about the 1992 Clinton campaign for the White House. John Travolta's Jack Stanton loves politics just like the real character he's based on and really cares about people, some of them so much he can't resist having sex with them. The reason to watch the film today, of course, is for insight into the Hillary character, Susan Stanton, as played by Emma Thompson (if you can get past how her repression of her British accent seems to give her Susan a sort of non-American blandness). Travolta's impression of our former president is a little too slow and scratchy and never quite nails down this character as someone who could win the presidency despite some huge errors in personal judgment. There's a great moment when Susan Stanton up and slaps the hell out of her husband's face after his latest infidelity: it's surprising and it's what you would hope Hill actually did to Bill at some point. However, this is a film that doesn't actually pick sides: Clinton haters will see it as proof that Bill was barely a moral level above pond scum, and Clinton lovers will see it as proof of his humanity, however flawed and imperfect.

The Incumbent. If our challenger film is about a candidate who loves politics too much, our champion -- "The Candidate" -- is about a candidate who doesn't love it enough, or even at all. Redford plays Bill McKay as a liberal lawyer fighting local battles for civil rights and environmental protection who is drafted into running a hopeless campaign, told he can say what he wants as a result and then starts to get close enough to victory to feel the need to compromise on his ideals. It illustrates the Catch-22 we have often put on American politics: namely, if a candidate wants to win, he must be suspect, and the best man has to lose or he can't be the best man after all. Written by Jeremy Larner and directed by Michael Ritchie, "The Candidate" isn't quite a comedy and it isn't quite a drama and, despite earlier admonitions that films aren't the way to send messages, this film is all about its message. It wants the audience to come away knowing that politics is a bad business that isn't really about governing at all, doesn't focus the issues but sands them down, and the system is so corrupt that the only way a good man or woman can prevail is to become corrupt and play the game. The deck is stacked at every juncture, but the details are beautifully realized and often subtle, throwing away the pay-off rather than ramming it home.

The Debate. The truth is that both these films have been bested by an independent candidate in this election. TV's "The West Wing" is superior to both in terms of laying out the mechanics of a modern political campaign and the show's final season pitting Alan Alda against Jimmy Smits was a great piece of film on an even larger and more complete canvas than either of our two main nominees.

First of all, "The West Wing" actually let its candidates talk about real issues with real answers. Both "Primary Colors" and "The Candidate" stage some of the most banal excuses for televised debates you'll ever see and, I'm not kidding, they actually make the latest round of Democratic and Republican debates look like sharp-edged battles over the issues.

It's also easy to argue that neither Travolta or Redford would ever have actually been elected as the characters they portray. Travolta is too phony and Redford is too removed. Even so, Redford's is the stronger performance. He feels real, within the context of his film, and Travolta feels like the caricature that he is and I didn't believe for a second that real voters would ever have supported him as portrayed.

On the other hand, there are wonderful performances in both films in supporting roles.  Peter Boyle is wonderful as the campaign manager in "The Candidate." Billy Bob Thornton steals every scene he's in as the James Carville political guru in "Primary Colors."

By the way, Stanton isn't the only cheater -- McKay also nails a young campaign worker out on the trail. With him, though, it looks like a one-time mistake and with Stanton it's obviously a bad habit he can't break.

West Wing Redux?

For a while now, I've been thinking that the upcoming Barack Obama-John McCain smackdown looked awfully familiar. As an avid West Wing TV series fan, it sure seems like that show's Matt Santos-Arnold Vinick earlier smackdown. You remember that one: aging Republican, viewed as too liberal by his own party, goes up against minority Democrat who refuses to wait his turn and defeats the establishment candidate within his own party. Like this:

And, now, it seems I'm not the only one who saw it that way. Slate magazine laid it all out recently. Check it out:

Primary Colors (1998) -vs- The Candidate (1972)

Absolute Politics Corrupts Absolutely
Review by Bryce Zabel 

The Smackdown. With the political season coming at us even earlier this year than ever before in history, it seems right to take a glance in the rear-view mirror of our campaign bus and check out two classic election films. "The Candidate" really established the genre 35 years ago, giving us Robert Redford at the height of his charismatic on-screen presence as a JFK-like California senatorial candidate who wants to run on issues but ends up running on great hair and piercing eyes. A quarter of a century later, we got "Primary Colors" with John Travolta standing in for that horny guy who couldn't keep it zipped on the campaign trail or in the Oval Office. So those are the two nominees on our ballot. Let's see who's got the goods to win this cinematic election -- Redford/Kennedy or Travolta/Clinton.

The Challenger. The film comes from quite a pedigree: political writer Joe Klein wrote the book (originally as "Anonymous"), and the film was written by Elaine May and directed by Mike Nichols. Everything inside is paper-thin disguised as being about the 1992 Clinton campaign for the White House. John Travolta's Jack Stanton loves politics just like the real character he's based on and really cares about people, some of them so much he can't resist having sex with them. The reason to watch the film today, of course, is for insight into the Hillary character, Susan Stanton, as played by Emma Thompson (if you can get past how her repression of her British accent seems to give her Susan a sort of non-American blandness). Travolta's impression of our former president is a little too slow and scratchy and never quite nails down this character as someone who could win the presidency despite some huge errors in personal judgment. There's a great moment when Susan Stanton up and slaps the hell out of her husband's face after his latest infidelity: it's surprising and it's what you would hope Hill actually did to Bill at some point. However, this is a film that doesn't actually pick sides: Clinton haters will see it as proof that Bill was barely a moral level above pond scum, and Clinton lovers will see it as proof of his humanity, however flawed and imperfect.

The Incumbent. If our challenger film is about a candidate who loves politics too much, our champion -- "The Candidate" -- is about a candidate who doesn't love it enough, or even at all. Redford plays Bill McKay as a liberal lawyer fighting local battles for civil rights and environmental protection who is drafted into running a hopeless campaign, told he can say what he wants as a result and then starts to get close enough to victory to feel the need to compromise on his ideals. It illustrates the Catch-22 we have often put on American politics: namely, if a candidate wants to win, he must be suspect, and the best man has to lose or he can't be the best man after all. Written by Jeremy Larner and directed by Michael Ritchie, "The Candidate" isn't quite a comedy and it isn't quite a drama and, despite earlier admonitions that films aren't the way to send messages, this film is all about its message. It wants the audience to come away knowing that politics is a bad business that isn't really about governing at all, doesn't focus the issues but sands them down, and the system is so corrupt that the only way a good man or woman can prevail is to become corrupt and play the game. The deck is stacked at every juncture, but the details are beautifully realized and often subtle, throwing away the pay-off rather than ramming it home.

The Debate. The truth is that both these films have been bested by an independent candidate in this election. TV's "The West Wing" is superior to both in terms of laying out the mechanics of a modern political campaign and the show's final season pitting Alan Alda against Jimmy Smits was a great piece of film on an even larger and more complete canvas than either of our two main nominees.

First of all, "The West Wing" actually let its candidates talk about real issues with real answers. Both "Primary Colors" and "The Candidate" stage some of the most banal excuses for televised debates you'll ever see and, I'm not kidding, they actually make the latest round of Democratic and Republican debates look like sharp-edged battles over the issues.

It's also easy to argue that neither Travolta or Redford would ever have actually been elected as the characters they portray. Travolta is too phony and Redford is too removed. Even so, Redford's is the stronger performance. He feels real, within the context of his film, and Travolta feels like the caricature that he is and I didn't believe for a second that real voters would ever have supported him as portrayed.

On the other hand, there are wonderful performances in both films in supporting roles.  Peter Boyle is wonderful as the campaign manager in "The Candidate." Billy Bob Thornton steals every scene he's in as the James Carville political guru in "Primary Colors."

By the way, Stanton isn't the only cheater -- McKay also nails a young campaign worker out on the trail. With him, though, it looks like a one-time mistake and with Stanton it's obviously a bad habit he can't break.

Grace Under Pressure - Al Gore Concedes in 2000

On December 13, it will have been seven long years since the tied election of 2000 was un-tied by the patriotism of Al Gore, a man who has just been given the Nobel Prize.

On that December day in 2000, though, Gore gave up his battle to be president and conceded the race to George W. Bush.

Neither he nor I anticipated this long and difficult road. Certainly neither of us wanted it to happen. Yet it came, and now it has ended, resolved, as it must be resolved, through the honored institutions of our democracy... Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College. And tonight, for the sake of our unity of the people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.

With that, Al Gore said it was time for him to go and for a while, he left the stage, grew a beard and debated his new plans while, across the nation, we saw the clear emergence of the whole concept of red and blue states and a divided America.

This November 20, 2000 Newsweek cover ("The Winner Is..."), by the way, was voted #31 on a list of the "Best Magazine Covers" of the past 40 years by ASME, or the American Society of Magazine Editors. Did anybody else notice that when the two men's faces were merged for this Newsweek cover that the result looks a whole lot like a grown up Alfred E. Newman from Mad magazine?

Remember what it was like back then right after the vote? Even Bill Clinton got off a great one-liner saying, "The American people have spoken, but it's going to take a little while to determine what they said." Newsweek's cover article this week was called "A Whiff of Victory...But Now It's War." They began with describing one of the most surreal moments in American politics ever.

Bill Daley was in the motorcade, frantically calling Al Gore upfront in the lead car. It was 2a.m., and raining in Nashville, Tenn. The vice president was at the head of what looked like his own political funeral procession. He'd called George W. Bush to concede, and was on his way to a stage outside the War Memorial to thank his soaked supporters. But Daley, his campaign chairman, had just gotten new numbers from Florida -- the state that seemed to have put Bush over the top. Bush's lead was dwindling rapidly there: from 50,000 before the motorcade left the hotel, to a couple of thousand, dropping by the minute. It wasn't over, Daley instantly understood. But he also realized that his suddenly undefeated candidate didn't know it, and might make the wrong move once he got out of the limo. Mobile to mobile, Daley quickly got Gore on the line. "Whatever you do," he shouted into the phone, "do not go out on that stage!"

Daley, by the way, was the son of Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago who many people believe helped put John Kennedy over-the-top in Illinois in 1960 with some questionable votes. He would be asked to perform the family electoral miracle a second time but Florida was not Illinois and in 2000 lawyers from both parties were already on their planes to the next battleground.

We know what happened next. Lawsuits, court challenges, endlessly squinted at ballots, a month and a half of insanity, punctuated and ended by a 5-4 Supreme Court decison to force the counting stop where it stood -- with George Bush ahead. Finally, in December, it was over. But that was a long way off when this magazine was written. Newsweek sussed out the stakes with accuracy:

Both sides claimed a noble objective: to bestow legitimacy on whoever would be judged the ultimate winner. But the candidates' transparent posturing and legal maneuvering reminded voters of just what they disliked about each one: Gore's merciless hunger, Bush's smirking arrogance. And that, in the end, could lower the standing of whichever one lands in the White House. Each would be seen by his foes -- half the country -- in the worst light: Bush, the Accidental President, elevated by the miscast ballots of elderly voters in Palm Beach condos; Gore, the Ruthless Prince, propelled to power by spinners, lawyers, and his own guile.

We know more today than we did then, of course. We know that Bush finally got the office, that Gore gave the best speech of his life when he conceded, and that Bush Jr. was considered an "accidental" president of sorts until the events of September 11, 2001 made all that seem petty and gave him the chance to stand on his own. We also know that Ralph Nader sucked votes aplenty from Al Gore's campaign, and that Pat Buchanan's position on the Florida butterfly ballot sucked possibly crucial votes from Gore as well. But Nader was about ego and the staggered ballot was about stupidity -- and neither one of them is illegal in presidential politics.

As far as the election itself went, we know that in the popular vote Al Gore actually won by some 550,000 votes. We know that in the electoral college that George Bush actually won by a vote of 271 to 266. As for the dispute in Florida, after the Supreme Court ruling, several journalistic organizations went back and re-counted all the Florida ballots in multiple ways -- the way Gore wanted them counted, the way Bush wanted them counted, and a few others variations -- and Bush always won. Not by much, but he won Florida for real (unless we wanted to interrogate senior citizens about who they thought they were voting for). Since our constitution awards the presidency based on what happens in the Electoral College, that's advantage Bush whether you liked it or not. Photo-finish, but a finish, of sorts.

Let's close with one of Gore's final lines in that concession speech:

As for the battle that ends tonight, I do believe as my father once said, that no matter how hard the loss, defeat might serve as well as victory to shape the soul and let the glory out.

Maybe, crazy as it sounds, there was a glory to be let out in Gore's loss. His destiny was not to lead a divided nation but to help heal an endangered planet. For everybody's sake, let's hope so...

"E" Is For Excellent

There are few things in life as satisfying as listening to a brand-new Bruce Springsteen album on the day it's released. Well, maybe some, but they usually don't involve headphones...

I listened to it once yesterday after getting the iTunes download (I had it pre-paid to get it right away) and I've just returned from a long walk where I heard all of "Magic" for a second time on my iPod. I was so into the experience that when I passed my friend Anne on the street I almost missed her.

This is Springsteen’s first album of original songs with the E Street Band since 2004. Don't get me wrong, though, I absolutely thought "We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions" and "Live in Dublin" were extraordinary. This latest, however, is a return to form in a powerful way.

It's very political, too, although I have to confess that on first or second listens for me, I don't focus on the meaning of the words but on the emotion of the music. Here's what Rolling Stone's David Fricke said about the politics in his review:

...Springsteen’s songwriting here is also intricately wired with outrage and disbelief. The pain, courage and genuine love of country that he saw and felt after 9/11 and put to song with the E Street Band on The Rising have gone up in flames and betrayal. He makes no direct references to Iraq, Bush or the so-called Patriot Act. He doesn’t need them. The pared metaphors and straight talk carry the weight and body count. Like “Born in the U.S.A.,” “Gypsy Biker” is the sober homecoming of a war veteran with images of anxious preparation (“We pulled your cycle out of the garage/And polished up the chrome”) and wasted effort (“The speculators made their money on the blood you shed”). Except this time, the soldier is returning in a coffin, and the devastated singer is numb with grief, mourning over lines of cocaine. “Last to Die”takes off like “Thunder Road,”but into a darkness of unknown depth. “Who will be the last to die for a mistake?”Springsteen sings, gripping the wheel and marking the miles in fires and martyrs from both sides of the road. And the title song, a skeleton dance of acoustic guitar and cimbalom, is a catalog of tricks, not magic. At the end, Springsteen adds up the high price of White House snake oil in a voice strained with exhaustion: “There’s bodies hangin’ in the trees/This is what will be, this is what will be.”

Let's get back to the music itself, though. I know this will mark me, maybe, as a lightweight but the song that hooked me immediately was the beach-radio sound of "Girls in Their Summer Clothes." After that, though, there are so many great cuts: "I'll Work for Your Love," "Your Own Worst Enemy," "Magic" and "The Long Walk Home" grab you right away. I was less passionate for the first cut they released from this as a tease, "Radio Nowhere" but it's good, too. Nothing that turned me off.

The thing is, it's great, it's Springsteen, and I'm damn glad we have him around because nobody, and I mean nobody, can do what he does as well as he does it.

The Bigger the Lie...

My friend, Jay Amicarella, sent this out on September 11. Prepare to be infuriated. He writes:

I've been stewing about this off and on for a couple weeks. My incredibly social daughter has friends at all the schools around here, and she and a guy she pals with met a pair of exchange students staying at a friend's house -- one young guy from Lebanon, another from Afghanistan.  She brought them home one night with some other kids, and I liked them right off, so polite, but also funny and very intelligent.

She met them again a week or so later, when a bunch of the kids got together at another friend's house to hang and watch the movie "Borat." The film prompted one of the exchange students to remark that the Jews are responsible for 9/11.  The other exchanger calmly agreed, like it was common knowledge. The U.S. kids were shocked into silence, until someone asked "how?" The exchange students explained how the World Trade Center employs over 3,000 Jews and, on the morning of 9/11, every single one of them called in sick. 

Naturally, this raised a rather brisk discussion, as my daughter tells it, but the exchange kids stuck to their guns, amused at how little American kids know about their own country.  Apparently, this tale is common in the Middle East.  My daughter and I talked about this, and I asked her not to hate them.  She said she didn't; because she still couldn't believe that stuff came out of their mouths.

You would think that 9/11 would be a straightforward story and that if you're going to claim that all 3,000 Jews stayed home and called in sick that there is a burden of proof involved in that claim. And that, 9/11 being one extremely well-reported story by reporters from all over the world, someone would have turned up the evidence for that one. It's not that hard to check out if it really happened, right?

I'd like to hear them explain how this conspiracy worked. Apparently it must have been set up ahead of time, right, so these 3,000 people would know to stay home. And yet no one has talked in all this time. That's JFK times 100 as far as cover-ups must go.

I guess when you want to believe in hate, you don't need evidence and you get to reverse the burden of proof and smugly assume that it is up to someone else to disprove every crazy thought you've had.

In my opinion, these smug "exchange" students  and their ridiculous anti-Semitism can be exchanged back to where they came from, the sooner the better. And these were the "polite" ones...

Independence Day: Happy 231st America!

With the country starting up another bitter election cycle, our citizens mostly opposed to an overseas war, immigration forcing us to decide what an American is and isn't, and the current president about as unpopular as they come, we're about to celebrate another 4th of July. Because we're so divided, it seems, most of us are vaguely uncomfortable talking about issues like patriotism and it's easier to drink a Bud at the fireworks than to consider what any of it means. Which, if you think about it, is probably all the more reason to try. So, in that spirit, here goes...

The birth of the United States of America was set in motion 231 years ago and I'm glad it was. When the Founding Fathers commited us to this grand experiment by breaking with Great Britain, they did a bold thing for their time and for all times. If you'd like to read the Declaration of Independence (which is something everybody probably thinks they've done but haven't done in years and years), then CLICK HERE and read away.

Just fragments in the reflecting pool, or something special?

I was going to write a little blurb here about how Hollywood views patriotism and the things that go with it like the flag, the Pledge of Allegiance, the Star-Spangled Banner and the like, but then I realized that was probably career suicide in a red-blue polarized country where patriotism itself can be a hot-button issue. That essay will have to wait for another time, I suppose.

Take the red pill or the blue pill? Or maybe the red-blue pill?

Everybody's patriotism is different anyway, and there are many ways to look at your country. On this 231st birthday, then, here's my state-of-mind:

We are deeply divided, but we've been deeply divided many times before.

We have many problems, but there have always been problems and we continue to work on them from one generation to another. Things aren't perfect, I know that, but I'm still proud to be a citizen of the United States of America. I've traveled the world a bit, and I love the diversity of this endangered planet we live on, but this is my home and I like it enough to stay involved with it.

We remain a country of great promise. We have done great things and more great things are in our future. We're not done. No matter which side you're on of a particular issue, if you think the country is going down the wrong path, we have shown the capability of re-generation and growth. Staying involved is the key.

Oh, say, can you see?

We've made mistakes (some big ones) and we will make more mistakes. But our long arc is still to the positive, most especially when compared to some of the truly horrific things that can happen and have happened around the world, both now and in the past. We aren't done but we are still going about the work of building a more perfect union and that's a very good thing.

To the men and women representing America overseas who aren't home with their families, thank you for your service. We hope to see you back home with us soon. I remain in awe of your courage and your spirit.

Don't mess with Uncle Sam!

As we said, the polls now say that most Americans aren't fans of President Bush. That's okay, too, our country is unique in the fearlessness with which our citizens can express such condemnations of their leaders. Disapproval of the current White House occupant, however, doesn't have to diminish love of country.

On this day, I would simply point out that there is still so very much to love about the United States. I'd ask us all to think a little less about demonizing the people who disagree with us on various issues and spend a little more effort treating them with respect. This applies to Democrats and Republicans. Like a lot of Americans, I'm sick of the hate-vibe that comes from the Michael Moores on the left and the Ann Coulters on the right. Listen up, people, let's knock this off and get to work solving problems. It's a dangerous world out there and we have enough to do without fighting so bitterly with each other.

This holiday my family will be doing some grilling, catching some tunes and watching some fireworks. Embarrassing as it is, that would be me below with enough tri-tip on the BBQ to feed the neighborhood at our big early get-together last 4th of July. Hope you and your family are together.

This land is my land, this land is your land.

So, Happy 231st birthday America... keep it comin'... we'll be there to help out...

At least that's my opinion -- For What It's Worth...

Gentlemen, Synchronize Your Watches

The Chris Matthews Show did a bit today about a picture of President Bush and Vice-President Cheney as they looked at their watches together. It's a pretty fun picture, goofy like synchronized swim without the water. Matthews challenged his panel to each come up with a caption and they all did. (I wonder if he showed it to them before-hand? Probably.) Then Matthews asked viewers to send in their own captions, and said that he'd pick one and announce a winner in two weeks. So far, so good. All harmless fun, right? Here's the photo with my caption:

"Condi gets another five minutes in the bathroom but then we're out of here."

Here's what's odd about the whole thing. That photo is six-and-a-half years old. It was taken January 26, 2001 following the ceremonial swearing-in ceremony for Secretary of State Colin Powell in the Oval Office. The White House released the photo in conjunction with President Bush's first 100 days in office. The Washington Post used it this past week in their much publicized series of articles about the VP's penchant for secrecy.

I'm a fan of Chris Matthews, in general, but it is head-scratching to me that the Matthews's "rapid response team" trots out a nearly seven year old photo. Why? Just to play gotcha on the White House? But, if that's their purpose, believe me, there's all kinds of good material being generated by these guys in the White House every day. Just ask Jon Stewart.

In any case, since it's getting so much publicity, let's give some credit where it's due: the photo was taken by Eric Draper, credited as working for Reuters. In actual fact, though, Draper was the White House photographer who took it and individual news organizations that print it do so as if he was one of their own guys. That's a story in itself.

Raise Your Hands? Just Say No!

Forcing presidential candidates to raise their hands like kindergarten kids asking permission to go to the bathroom is demeaning for the candidates, the debate process and the viewers.

Wolf Blitzer used this device to great excess in the Sunday night debate and it made me hate the idea, the way it looked and, frankly, Blitzer for pursuing it. Every time he did it I felt my skin crawl. It reduced my opinon of him as a journalist.

If I was advising any of the candidates, I would tell them to no longer play that game. If asked to do the "raise your hand" thing again, they should refuse and say something along these lines:

I won't be raising hands any longer when asked. It's not that I don't have opinions on the questions being raised, I do. Simply because the questioner thinks a response can be given in a "yes" or "no" fashion, does not make it true. So, from now on, I won't respond either way to these questions, no matter what the issue is. There are lots of journalists here and I will be happy to respond to all these questions in a straightforward and direct manner after the debate on any issue whatsoever.

Well, that's what I'd say. I also think the first candidate to say something like this is going to get applauded big-time, get lots of press, and score a tiny victory for looking like they won't be pushed around by insane media pooh-bahs.

Note to candidates: Just Say No.

My Breakfast with Jack (Valenti)

A true giant of Hollywood has passed on. Jack Valenti died today at the age of 85. The Los Angeles Times called him an "urbane Washington lobbyist." He was that, and so much more. The New York Times called him a "Hollywood institution." Both papers, naturally, took note of the fact that was the man responsible for the movie rating system we have today.

I met Jack several times during his final years as the head of the Motion Picture Association of America. As I recall, after 9/11 President Bush was sending Karl Rove out to speak before a high-level group of Hollywood leaders (how quaint that seems now, everyone trying to pull together) and, somehow, Valenti had something to do with who got invited. At the time, I was the chairman/CEO of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences in the middle of two Emmy cancelations, but I was the new kid on the block and he didn't know me and I wasn't on his guest list. I called his office to suggest that ATAS, a group of 12,000 members involved in making television for the nation and the world, ought to be at that table. I expected to get his secretary, but Jack jumped on the phone, we talked for quite a while, and I was most definitely invited then. He had one of the best Rolodexes in Hollywood, as legend had it, and now I was on it. Cool.

Later, as we traded a few more friendly phone calls about this-and-that, we agreed we should talk a little longer in person. I met Jack for breakfast one day at the Peninsula Hotel (I think). He had already exercised for an hour when he showed up at 8:00am, he was dressed perfectly in one of his white collared dress shirts, he ordered a fruit bowl and granola and we talked about how under-eating and regular exercise was his secret. I'll tell you this. He looked good, was fit as could be, and his mind was clear as could be. So, bottom line, I'd take his advice if you're interested in personal longevity.

As a JFK buff, I also asked him about that day in Dallas. Jack Valenti was there riding six cars back. He's seen in that famous photo of LBJ taking the oath beside Jackie Kennedy in her blood-spattered dress. That's Jack Valenti, crouching, in the far left corner. He always defended Oliver Stone's right to make "JFK" but he was furious at the implication Stone made that somehow LBJ was implicated in the plot. I shudder to think what his reaction would be to the alternative-history book that Harry Turtledove and I are working on, Winter of Our Discontent: The Impeachment and Trial of John F. Kennedy. He wouldn't like our portrayal of Johnson much, but we didn't make him a plotter either. Jack would probably defend our right to tell that story, too.

During the Academy days, I attended one hell of a lot of awards shows and public meetings and ran into Jack a number of times. He always remembered my name.

As a public speaker, man, he was top flight. He could get before a large crowd and extemporaneously speak with great eloquence and passion, never missing a beat. The ideas came out fully formed and the words they were expressed with always sounded like they had been written long in advance and commited to memory. Of course, that's just how they sounded. Jack was speaking from the heart.

Read the Los Angeles Times article here.

Read the New York Times article here.