Napoleon wouldn't make it in America

A reader from a small town (possibly a town of disenfranchised small people), commented that my list of presidential imperatives (post, January 23) is woefully incomplete. The following is missing: the candidate must also be tall. I have to confess that I have never paid much attention to the size of candidates for office, or of political leaders in general, maybe because I have never been invited to dinner at the White House (see same post) and so I view them from the perspective of the screen, where all people look like they are of average height.

My (perhaps inadequate) research, however, reveals that my reader is right. First, consider the height of the following successful people in general:

SHAQUILLE O'NEAL, NBA star: 7 feet, 1 inch 4
JIM GOODNIGHT, SAS founder: 6 feet, 5 inches
JOHN WAYNE, actor: 6 feet, 4 inches
TIGER WOODS, golf star: 6 feet, 2 inches
DAVID LETTERMAN, TV host: 6 feet, 2 inches
PRINCE WILLIAM, royal heir: 6 feet, 2 inches
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: between 5'11" and 6', depending on who's reporting
MAYA ANGELOU, poet: 6 feet
NICOLE KIDMAN, actress: 5 feet, 10 inches
DIANE SAWYER, newswoman: 5 feet, 9 inches

Now let's take it into the political domain. A UNC research study on the importance of height reaches the following conclusion:

"not since 1896 have U.S. citizens elected a president whose height was below average (William McKinley, who, at 5 feet 7 inches tall, was ridiculed in the press as 'little boy.')"

So, my astute reader is correct. "Must be tall" joins the list of vital (if trivial) imperatives. And, let me throw out another little piece of research: since the time of modern vote counting (flawed as it may be), only ONE candidate actually won the electoral college even though he was shorter than his opponent: Jimmy Carter took the seat from Ford, even though he was a piddly 5'9" and Ford was 6'1" . (I do understand that G.W. Bush at 5'11" was a tad shorter than Gore at 6'1", but the key word here is "won")

As for the Democratic hopefuls, if you're placing bets on who will carry it, here are the crucial numbers (and therein lies the answer as to how on earth Kerry leapfrogged over Dean in Iowa), straight from the Hill:

At the head of the pack is the gargantuan John Kerry, who stands in at about 6'4" (presumably including the hair). Going down the line is Dick Gephardt at 6'1", then John Edwards at about 6' even. Al Sharpton measures up at about 5'11", Wesley Clark 5'11", Howard Dean about 5'9", Joe Lieberman 5'8", Dennis Kucinich 5'7" and, finally, Carol Moseley Braun at, we'll say, 5'4".

Goats and Lawyers and Meryl Streep

Which story tugs at the heart more? The goat that paid for a girl’s education, or the lawyer who befriended a lonely, dying man? A small percentage in need who get a break, from good lawyers, good goats. From the point of view of political priorities, what do you concentrate your efforts on? Creating fewer in need or more who’ll help? The answer seems obvious, though the current political thinking appears to hold the opposite position.

Moments ago, Meryl Streep said on the Golden Globes (I am WIRED!) that the two biggest problems in America are NOT gay marriage and steroids in sports. It’s not the first time that she is right.

Don’t be fooled: the stuff isn’t any good

A good review is usually a good sign that a book has merit. Unless the review is in the NYT: This from a recent statement by Erlanger:

"To be honest, there's so much s---," the new leader of the daily arts section observes. "Most of the things we praise aren't very good."

Changes are about to take place at the NYT Book Review (see link). For one thing, we shouldn’t count on more reviews of fiction. There isn’t enough of a polemic in reviewing fiction. Making up good things to say about authors and their not-so-good books just isn’t very sexy.

Maureen, I’m going to stop reading you if you don’t cut it out.

Not a great threat, I know. But the trivialization game (post on January 23) continues on the op-ed page today:

..some reporters thought that thrust into her first national television interview, Judy Dean seemed as fragile as Laura in "The Glass Menagerie." At moments on ABC, the couple seemed so far from mainstream American life and so disconnected from each other's careers, they were like characters who had walked into the wrong play.
.. I found Judy Dean, gussied up with unfamiliar lipstick and blush, charming. She seemed as antithetical as possible to the notion of a first lady — and that ain't all bad. I'm not sure I believed her assertion that her high-spirited husband doesn't ever blow his top at home. And it still seems strange that she is so oblivious to the major moments of his campaign: She told Diane Sawyer that she had not seen The Scream the night it happened, which means [nc: here we go again…] she wasn't watching his big speech on election night in Iowa.

I’ll take trivial if it’s laugh-out-loud funny, or part of a blog or something. But in an NYT article that describes the new Dean as a pathetically “declawed, de-clenched, de-Deaned Dean,” Dowd’s jibe at the Deans, the couple, makes her appear to be sharpening her own fangs on yesterday’s pumpkin pie.

Another Sunday: More Family Trivia

My grandmother (1901 – 1994) was the most apolitical person I know. My grandfather (1886 – 1973) was completely immersed in politics. She baked during the night shift and in retirement, made pierogi and nalesniki (blintzes). He organized labor groups, built community centers, and championed organic farming. Did they get along and find the middle ground? Hardly. Poor for the better part of their lives and certainly at the time of their courtship, they may well have qualified for Bush’s aid for marriage counseling. Not that they should have married to begin with. But they were destined to do so: he needed a wife, she needed a husband. They never divorced, but in later years sometimes they lived apart, sometimes together. Their lives defied compartmentalization or labeling. They lived in Poland, then in the US, then after the War, in Poland again. They were unique, as are other partnerships and marital units. Poverty sparked tension; later, a modestly comfortable retirement (it was a fluke, too complicated to explain here) eased the tension considerably. She continued to focus on feeding successive generations of the family, he on his community work. It worked. Sort of. Is there a lesson here?

Call it a liberal incarnation of trickle-down economics: self-sufficiency leads to healthier marriage/partnership, not the other way around. If the marriage mobile dispenses jobs with a decent living wage, I’ll jump on its bandwagon.