-
"After a dutifully memorized laundry list of names, Hathaway closed with the wish that “someday in the not too distant future, the misfortunes of Fantine will only be found in stories.” I’m sure all the consumptive French prostitutes with bad dentistry who were watching the Oscars appreciated that."
—“Anne Hathaway: C+” Michael Schulman grades the Oscar acceptance speeches: http://nyr.kr/W8FSgy
…and, read David Denby on the First Lady at the Awards (“Not good, Academy. Pleaes don’t do it again”), and the night’s highs and lows: http://nyr.kr/15KxxRx
and Claire Hoffman on Seth MacFarlane, creepy imitator and Oscars host: http://nyr.kr/13iytgx
-
"In its intensity, in the palpable love between performer and audience, in its passion, in its earnestness, in its straightforwardness—in its politics, even!—this was the rhetorical equivalent of a Bruce Springsteen concert."
— Born to Run: Hendrik Hertzberg on Bill Clinton’s speech at the D.N.C.: http://nyr.kr/Nf7uLq(Source: newyorker.com)
-
Love and Presidents: Amy Davidson on the difference between Michelle Obama and Ann Romney’s convention speeches: http://nyr.kr/RL8gwe
For more of The New Yorker’s convention coverage, visit The Political Scene. You can also read Ryan Lizza on Julián Castro’s keynote address and the relationship between President Obama and Bill Clinton; John Cassidy on Obama’s and Paul Ryan’s false statements about the economy; Amy Davidson on the gay-rights platform and whether Democrats are better off than they were four years ago; and Alex Koppelman on Obama and the American Dream.
Photograph by Ken Cedeno/Corbis.
-
The presidential bully pulpit isn’t as effective as one would think. Evidence shows that the louder a president speaks to support an issue or bill, the more committed the opposing party will be to ensure that it won’t pass:
To test her theory, she created a database of eighty-six hundred Senate votes between 1981 and 2004. She found that a President’s powers of persuasion were strong, but only within his own party. Nearly four thousand of the votes were of the mission-to-Mars variety—they should have found support among both Democrats and Republicans. Absent a President’s involvement, these votes fell along party lines just a third of the time, but when a President took a stand that number rose to more than half. The same thing happened with votes on more partisan issues, such as bills that raised taxes; they typically split along party lines, but when a President intervened the divide was even sharper.
“The Unpersuaded.” — Ezra Klein, New Yorker
See also: “Power and the Presidency, From Kennedy to Obama.” — Robert Dallek, Smithsonian, March 21, 2011
(via longreads)
-
Ezra Klein on
