“By the People” is a praise initiative that doesn’t offer much beyond what politicos and Obama enthusiasts already know: Obama was a regular Joe who, through a series of (unfortunate for the American people) events, captured the presidency.

While Hollywood’s insane obsession with anything and anyone left of center is never a surprise, one should ardently question why HBO, after purchasing the film for seven figures, has chosen to ignore other intriguing political stories.  Why not balance the film with another special or documentary that explores the McCain-Palin campaign?  One could argue, as I’m sure HBO would, that the focus of the film is on to the winning candidate.  Fine.  Argue away, but anyone with a pulse knows we’d be hard pressed to see a similar accolade to a Republican victor.  Furthermore, Sarah Palin’s initial book sales prove that she’s a brand worth exploring.  So, why not go for it?

And then there’s the timing of the film’s release.  The network chose to air the documentary at a time when majorities oppose various elements of the president’s agenda and smack dab in the middle of some highly-contested state and local races.  Add the film’s timing to some of the more bizarre, behind-the-scenes connections and you can begin to triangulate relationships and allegiances.

First, let’s consider the film’s producer – famed actor Edward Norton.  While one should never be surprised by a Hollywood celebrity’s urge to support leftist inclinations, in this case there’s a twist.  To bring the film to fruition, Norton worked with Ari Emanuel, the brother of Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.  Last November, Gawker reported the following:

“… at one point it looked like some of film’s distribution proceeds might be headed back in the general direction of the Obama camp. As of eight months ago, Endeavor Agency’s Ari Emanuel was the agent for the film. Emanuel, of course, is the brother of Rahm Emanuel, just named Obama’s chief of staff. He was also an Obama fundraiser…”

So, Edward Norton shopped the documentary with Ari Emanuel, a man with a vested interest in Barack Obama’s campaign – and, a guy with key access to top government officials.  Unbelievable.  Perhaps most hilarious is Variety’s coverage from early 2008: “Norton said the motivation behind the film was not to glorify its subject.” Anyone out there actually believe that?  According to Rice, “When we shot the final scenes in the Oval Office, [Obama] he asked us, ‘What do you guys need?’  It was incredibly special. I got choked up.”

Is Rice sense-retardant?  She was creating a documentary that was more than favorable to the Obama camp.  Of course he was more than willing to assist!

As a professor, one of the main listening skills I work to instill in my students is the ability to determine what a speaker isn’t telling an audience.  Often times, some of the most intriguing information is embedded in omitted material.

At the beginning of the film, in footage circa 2006, Barack Obama is asked if he plans to run for the presidency.  In response, Obama says he is unsure and explains that he plans to look into how he would best serve the country.  Considering the foreknowledge that he might run, it was odd that the filmmakers chose to lead with this.  In fact, it was two years earlier, in 2004, when Obama said that he would not run in 2008, citing his inexperience.  Call it poor research on the filmmakers’ part or purposeful exclusion, but the words “Obama” and “American presidency” were uttered well before the 2006 midterm elections.

Here is Obama’s 2004 response to the question, “So, why have you ruled that out – running nationally?”:

“I am a believer in…knowing what you’re doing…when you apply for a job…”

“If I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket…I would essentially have to start now…before having served a day in the Senate. Now there might be some people who would have no problem doing that, but ah…I’m not one of them.”

We all know how good Obama is at keeping promises.

Now, let’s talk about the film’s contents.  Of particular interest and concern is the control Obama has over America’s young generation.  In the film, David Axlerod explained that one of Obama’s main motivations for running stemmed from his urge to show children that “anything is possible.”  In political terms that means, “We’ve found our voting bloc!”

When speaking about the Iowa caucus, Axlerod said, “These kids are going to win it for us…they think they’re changing the world…we need more of that.”  Robert Gibbs awkwardly intervened, saying, “The good news is, I think they are.”  The latter statement was an attempt to bridge the divide between Axlerod’s campaign analytics and the need for more audience-friendly interaction.  In the end, it’s evident that Obama and Co. were intent on exploiting young Americans, a tactic that worked wonderfully in their favor.

Race was another theme that appeared periodically throughout the film.  Interviews with citizens positioned Obama as the most unlikely of all candidates to win, with respondents stating that the nation wasn’t ready for an African-American president.  Ironically, liberals are the main culprits who railed on and on about how ill-prepared the nation was for this advancement.  As a conservative, I was more than ready, pending the individual capturing the top spot had the qualifications to perform the job.  Barack Obama did not have those needed elements.  Needless to say, the filmmakers didn’t speak with many people who thought it was, indeed, possible for a black man to win the presidency.

The entire film centered around the “emotional” impact Obama has had on America’s young generation.  As a 26-year-old young guy, I’m not feeling it.  Throughout the film, campaign workers cried fervently, chanted Obama praises and gave their all for “change they could believe in.”  While this is their right, the film itself was less than objective.  And I’m fine with that as well, but it would be an extraordinarily overdue kudos to democracy to see HBO (Honoring Barack Obama) air a similarly fair-minded film that centers on Palin’s historic run or McCain’s heroic life story.

Watching Hollywood and the Democratic elite pat each other on the back is getting old.  HBO and other media companies should consider being more fair minded and delving into the other side on a more frequent basis.  In the case of “By the People,” though, the media and entertainment cronyism will take your breath away.  No wonder Obama picks fights with the media who disagree with him.  He’s become accustomed to lapdog media and liberal Hollywood.  Let’s hope these institutions challenge him a bit more here on in.

The film’s first 45 minutes deals with the Iowa Caucus where Obama’s campaign begins. He spends eight months meeting people and working his bland charm, trying to convince everyone he’s just like them. An agreeable, prosaic kind of guy who looks good in a suit and grins a lot. There is no indication of his politics or past associations being radical. He seems a moderate. There are a few people interviewed who question his past, but it’s given little attention.

Obama coasts through his campaign like some kind of prom king who’s used to people throwing rose petals at his feet. Michelle is shown as being the supportive wife and the kids are along for the ride. It’s an image of the family that goes along with the narrative they created for themselves. The film makers said in interviews that they were impressed by how zen-like the Obama team seemed to be. My impression was they never seemed that emotionally engaged. Obama often smiled, but he was generally very detached, almost like he was coasting to victory on a wave of hubris. Robert Gibbs and David Axelrod were shown as two tired-looking, almost bored middle aged guys wrangling Obama’s scruffy young ideologues as they tried to get more voters on their side.

Obama’s “genius” as a politician is to be a blank slate for people who didn’t know him. They projected their own aspirations and expectations on his candidacy. He appeared at a time when people were afraid the economy was tanking and they didn’t see answers in the usual faces running for president. They were able to see Obama as someone calm and in control. An image he was able to maintain throughout the race.

Isn’t it funny how looks are often deceiving?

The film’s villain wasn’t so much John McCain but Hillary Clinton, who gave Obama his biggest fight. Yes, the revealing thing about this doc was how Obama seemed to be largely unaffected by the ups and downs of the race. Part of that comes from the fact that Obama was “selected and not elected.” He won caucuses, Hillary won elections. Obama was able to get enough delegates by caucuses to appear the leader in the race. Then momentum carried him home.

Obama’s career has been full of opportunities and awards handed to him on a platter. And when that doesn’t work, he uses underhanded tricks.

The film is a lot like Obama himself: bland, humorless and full of meaningless platitudes. But it looks nice.

And that’s the problem with ObamaMania. The Dems threw Hillary Clinton under the bus because many of them didn’t like her baggage, yet these same people, who screamed bloody murder about President Bush’s missing National Guard records, didn’t even blink at the fact that Obama has locked away so many things in his past and denied his associations with America-hating radicals. Yet his cabinet is full of those very same kind of people. Which brings us to the two most hilarious statements Obama made in the campaign, which were repeated in the film:

“People are tired of fear, distractions and diversions.” and “They (the people) don’t deserve four more years of failed economic policies.”

No wonder his poll numbers are dropping. He’s right!

The irony of this show was that it debuted on the night Obama was given a glimpse of his political future. Major losses were handed to the Dems. And over on ABC, a remake of the ’80s sci fi show “V” was aired, only this time it was a comment on ObamaMania. Attractive aliens come to earth and promise “universal health care” and hope and change in return for our trust and devotion. Little do the foolish earth people know, the aliens are here to destroy us.

Don’t you hate it when that happens?

Mr. David has been blessed beyond any struggling writer, producer, actor or stand-up comedian’s wildest dreams. His total cash receipts have still not been tallied since the funds continue to pour in from “Seinfeld,” but it’s accurate to say that with what he has earned to date, he could have paid for a lot of Nancy Pelosi’s botox.

Years after helping make television history, David jumped back into the small screen with the blessing of HBO and created “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” which — in line with him marching to the beat of his own drum — is done unscripted. The show has a very solid following as it is in its seventh season, which is three television lifetimes these days. Great Larry, Mazal Tov. Isn’t America grand? Bet you would only have had the career of Heidi from the Hills if you lived in Cuba. 

So what would possess Larry to create a scene where he’s at a Catholic woman’s home and accidentally pees on a portrait of Jesus hanging in her bathroom (of all places)?  I believe the motivator is pure and simple … an arrogant a sense of “I am a genius” entitlement because that’s what he’s been described as for two decades.

I’m a stand-up comedian and actress with a very high tolerance for humor. I’m also aware that comedy is subjective and what might be a falling-off-the-chair moment for one person can be an insomnia cure for another.  However, I believe that Larry knew exactly what he was doing to get a reaction. It has now become vogue to take swipes at Christianity whenever possible.  He could have picked anyone else to miss the toilet on and, by the way,  for such a genius he used the lowest common denominator of humor: the bathroom and urinating — a fine improvisational moment if there ever was one.

Let’s put our imaginary hats on and think of what the outrage would have been if this had been done to say, Muhammad—yes, exactly, lawsuits a-flying, reparations, apologies, a lifetime supply of Starbucks!! How dare you!!! But using Jesus, the Lord and Savior to at least 65% of the United States population… eh, who cares, I have a show to do and a laugh to get.  

I posted my disgust on Facebook and most people agreed. However, there are always those few who like to use freedom of speech as a replacement for freedom of being a complete jerk. One person I was arguing said, “Why don’t you stop complaining and do something, write or call HBO?”  I hate to admit this lefty had a point, but he did, so I called HBO. It took 15 minutes to get the number and an actual person on the line, who I told in a very nice way (I toned down my New Yorkness) that I was a stand-up comic open to all types of humor, but as a Christian I was insulted and found it very disrespectful. As I was speaking she let out a sigh, a big fat sigh, she then said she would make a note of it, though she did not ask my name, email — nothing!

So I guess I have to turn to the only recourse I have and cancel HBO.

“First let me state that I’ve been a fan of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” for many years and, even though Larry David is a liberal, I generally enjoy the writing and Larry’s antics. However, this time what I saw made me feel a little sick, extremely disappointed and a bit angry as well. I will never watch the show again as I have lost all respect and feelings of good will for Mr. David.

“Did you happen to see the episode to which I refer? Assuming you did not catch the episode, briefly stated: Larry pisses on the face of a painting of Jesus Christ, followed by mocking of Christians who believe the piss drop on the face of Jesus is a tear, thus they’ve witnessed a miracle. I wonder how many other viewers, Christian and non Christian, are similarly shocked and disgusted? Of course, the hypocrisy is that Mr. David would never exhibit such gross contempt for any other religion, especially Islam.

“Can you imagine the shit storm that would follow if David pissed on a painting of the prophet Muhammad? Of course, HBO, the complicit scum that they are, would not have allowed that to air.”

This article also mentions the incident.

I also abhor false or frivolous claims of racism. Of course, according to the media, the end of this scourge was supposed to be of the many dividends of making Barack Obama President, but those of us on the right certainly know this has so far turned out to be one of many lies we were told during the 2008 campaign. 

Why mention two concepts with apparently nothing in common except my antipathy for them? The reason is that as I found myself watching the Emmy broadcast (I wasn’t that into the football game and Entourage hadn’t started yet) when it suddenly occurred to me that, based on liberal Hollywood’s definition of racism, I was witnessing an event that was barely one notch above a meeting of the Ku Klux Klan.

This offensive truth first hit me when they showed the crowd via a wide shot from the Los Angeles stage. I hit pause on my DVR and a comprehensive scan of the audience revealed that it resembled a film newsreel from the early 60’s (appropriate, I guess, since Mad Men won best drama) with row after row of skin pigmentation-challenged faces. I literally haven’t seen such a Caucasian dominant crowd in LA since I attended the USC/Texas Rose Bowl a couple of years ago.

But it wasn’t just those in attendance who were lacking this century’s greatest virtue: diversity. The host was white. All of the presenters I saw were white. Those who were nominated were almost all white. And Caucasians completely dominated the winner’s circle. Heck, even the guy who used to play the “White Shadow” won one.

But the overt “racism” didn’t stop there. Tracy Morgan, arguably the most prominent black nominee, plays a character on 30 Rock that is easily among the most dangerously stereotyped black roles in modern television (I guess since the show’s two real stars, Tina Fey and Alec Baldwin, are hardcore liberals, this is not relevant). If that wasn’t enough, the black person who got by far the most attention during the telecast was Kayne West, and that was because he was being made fun of all night.

And yet despite the Nokia Theater being transformed into the liberal caricature of the Republican Convention (except with Tina Fey being honored instead of Sarah Palin), absolutely NOTHING has been said about this obvious and, based on what we have constantly been taught, horrifying development.  I have Googled all sorts of combinations of the words “racism, black, white, and EMMY awards” and not even one mention of Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson comes up.

At first glance this all may seem to be cause for celebration. Perhaps we really have turned a racial corner in this country and inequality of outcome is no longer seen as automatic proof of inequality of opportunity. Maybe it is even now okay for whites like me to beam in pride at my race’s ability to finally kick ass again in something “important” now that we have ceded even golf to the Cablinasians.

But I actually think there is something very seriously wrong going on here. What was showcased last night was less Hollywood’s “good old boy” network at work, and more the ramifications of over a decade now of massive fragmentation within the television media.

In the Golden Age of television (the 70’s and 80’s) there were only four or five channels and the networks were forced to broadcast. Now there are hundreds of channels and television has become all about narrowcasting to an economically preferred demographic (which, for the major networks, is apparently mostly made up of white people). So instead of Good Times, Sanford and Son, or The Jeffersons airing on major networks with big budgets and automatic mainstream audiences, the fragmentation has created a self-segregation phenomenon that is only surpassed by the dramatic racial disparity in religious worship. There is still plenty of “black” television programming; it is now just on channels that mostly only other black people watch.

To me this is a sad and dangerous development.  Television used to be the ultimate uniter and now has become the definitive divider of our culture. The major networks used to create a de facto “team photo” of our nation which (after a slow start) eventually included everyone in the picture. Now, each race, gender, and age group has their own “team” and tends to watch programming that is built to only appeal to them. In short, we end up living in very different realities with almost nothing in common (this same ominous trend can of course be seen in news coverage with the advent of cable news networks with obvious political leanings).

While this modern reality has its advantages (HBO’s non-Bill Maher original programming and The Golf Channel immediately come to mind), there seems to be little doubt that it is a net loss to the strength of the fabric of our country.  What is most surprising however is that no one seems to be noticing it, even when the evidence is as black and white as it was Emmy night.

[ed. note: In a scheduling reshuffle this piece accidentally published for a few minutes last week.]

For those of you unfamiliar with Savage, here’s an excerpt from a Salon piece he wrote in 2000 titled “Stalking Gary Bauer.” The set-up was simple, Savage volunteered at Republican Gary Bauer’s presidential campaign headquarters and decided, “…if it’s terrorism Bauer wants, then it’s terrorism Bauer is going get[.]“:

Naked, feverish and higher than a kite on codeine aspirin, I called the Bauer campaign and volunteered. My plan? Get close enough to Bauer to give him the flu, which, if I am successful, will lay him flat just before the New Hampshire primary. …

I went from doorknob to doorknob. They were filthy, no doubt, but there wasn’t time to find a rag to spit on. My immune system wasn’t all it should be — I was in the grip of the worst flu I had ever had — but I was on a mission. If for some reason I didn’t manage to get a pen from my mouth to Gary’s hands, I wanted to seed his office with germs, get as many of his people sick as I could, and hopefully one of them would infect the candidate.

So, much as it pains me to confirm a hateful stereotype of gay men — we will put anything in our mouths — I started licking doorknobs. The front door, office doors, even a bathroom door. When that was done, I started in on the staplers, phones and computer keyboards. Then I stood in the kitchen and licked the rims of all the clean coffee cups drying in the rack.

Acting out his burning hostility in such an inappropriate manner wasn’t a one shot deal, either. As recently as 2006, Savage declared in a videotaped interview that Green Party candidate Carl Romanelli should:

“…be dragged behind a pickup truck until there’s nothing left but the rope.”

Not only does the aptly named Savage take political discourse well beyond the pale, his noxious and dangerous behavior (what if Savage had given a vulnerable child or elderly person the flu?) appears to be what he’s most famous for — unless you count his syndicated sex column “Savage Love,” where Savage’s infamous attacks on Senator Rick Santorum and Pastor Rick Warren are too grotesque to detail here.

For those of you still not convinced, here’s the 2007 transcript from a radio interview Savage did where he joked about “hate-f__king” Pastor Fred Phelps:

INTERVIEWER: You’re stuck in a desert island with Dennis Hastert, Rush Limbaugh and Fred Phelps. You’ll be freed if you f–k one of them. Who are you going to do and why are they the best choice?

SAVAGE: Good God. Must I answer this question? I guess… uh… Fred Phelps, because he’s the most revolting of the three –way out in front of Hastert, and edging Limbaugh by a hair.

Why Fred? Well, I figure I might have an easier time working up a hate-f–k boner for Phelps than the other two. Plus he’s the skinniest and I likes ‘em skinny. But, man, just thinking about it makes me worry that I’ll never get a boner again. Out, out, damn mental image!

Savage’s beyond-the-pale political high-jinks have largely flown under the radar thanks to the indifference of the same mainstream media currently obsessing over average American citizens speaking up in town hall meetings. Thankfully for Savage, an openly gay Leftist, he’s the member of a protected class, which means he’ll never be held accountable for his behavior — on the contrary. True to form, HBO appears ready to reward him with a spot on their influential network.

Alexander Marlow contributed to this report.

Like anyone who lives to see his 82nd birthday, Sinatra the man is defined by more than just wherever some storyteller decides to point his soda straw focus. Sinatra the man was also a “man,” a virile, strong, fiercely independent, two-fisted scrapper who fought for everything he achieved. Regardless of his gifts as an actor, there is no way the eternal boy-faced DiCaprio can fill those shoes convincingly — especially if Scorsese wins the day and tells the story of the sixties, which began with the singer’s 45th birthday.

Tina Sinatra, the late star’s daughter, is said to be unhappy with the “dark direction” of the film’s script and wants a more “sanitized” version of her father’s life story. …

“Marty wants it to be hard-hitting and showcase the violent, sexually charged, hard-drinking Frank, but Tina wants to show the softer side of her dad and let the focus be on the music,” a source told the New York Post.

“The Sixties were a very swinging time for Frank – he was having sex with a garden variety of bimbos and cementing his Rat Pack status. It’s a really key time to his mythology. Tina really wants to make sure that a sanitized Frank comes through, and that it’s not overly negative.”

First off, the story of the Rat Pack has already been told in a pretty terrific 1998 HBO film, but what an absurd claim that this “swinging time” is anything close to “key” to the mythology of an individual who won two Oscars, will reign forever as the Beethoven of 20th Century music, openly fought for Civil Rights as early as the 1940s (!)  and quietly did more for charity than any entertainer before or since.

Frank Sinatra was a Great Man, a flawed man to be sure, but one no more defined by the 15% of his ring-a-ding period than Scorsese is by 20% of a post-”Casino” life spent directing one bloated, over-rated, disappointing chase for an Academy Award after another.

The article uses the word “sanitized” to describe what Tina Sinatra is after, but this is grossly unfair. A better word would be “context,” for their can be no truth, no “key” to the whole of a human being without context. The article also ignores the fact that the singer’s daughter was a producer on “Sinatra,” a 1992 television miniseries, which was not only produced while Frank was still alive but “sanitized” nothing in its unflinching look at her father’s life … far from it. 

Finally, from a pure movie-lovers point of view, using bad marriages, various addictions, mental illness and periods of bad behavior — the worst of the individual — as a three-act structure biopic crutch has been played out to the point that these films are becoming numbingly predictable. Will someone please sit Scorsese down and screen him “Malcolm X,” “Lawrence of Arabia,” “The Song of Bernadette,” “Patton,” “A Man for All Seasons,” “Schindler’s List,” and all of The Mighty Paul Muni’s work in this genre…?

The psychology behind an industry that takes so much obvious glee in tearing down and deconstructing greatness is for another post, but there’s no denying that Tina Sinatra’s approach would benefit everyone. As an artist Scorsese needs to surprise again and as a legend Ol’ Blue Eyes deserves better than “The Aviator” treatment.