Goodenough Gismo

  • Gismo39
    This is the classic children's book, Goodenough Gismo, by Richmond I. Kelsey, published in 1948. Nearly unavailable in libraries and the collector's market, it is posted here with love as an "orphan work" so that it may be seen and appreciated -- and perhaps even republished, as it deserves to be. After you read this book, it won't surprise you to learn that Richmond Irwin Kelsey (1905-1987) was an accomplished artist, or that as Dick Kelsey, he was one of the great Disney art directors, breaking your heart with "Pinocchio," "Dumbo," and "Bambi."

  • 74%How Addicted to Blogging Are You?

  • Google

Blogs I love and/or learn from

« A Reason to Rejoice [UPDATED ALREADY] | Main | "I've Never Been an Obsessive Partisan." »



["Hope" will live or die right there.]

I don't see why. Whatever Obama does about anything will please some and alienate others. We should have some degree of realistic hope that America will continue to evolve as chaotically and unpredictably as ever. There will be some fanatical nuts and incompetents around Obama just as there were around Bush.

Just because a guy was a law professor and wrote nice books does not mean he will be a world-saving hero.


I would think Larry Summers has his own negative, matching luggage- BWDIK? He's the dude that officially repealed that (Glass/Stegall)Act, wasn't it- that was the real beginning of the end, IMhumbleO- of the banking scandals of today. Under Clinton 10+yrs ago.



And here they're worrying about the feminists being mad at him.

It seems it's all an inside job. We're not going to get a president who takes Wm. F. Buckley's advice and opens the Boston phone book.

Peter Hoh

I suspect that the NYT is being played.


Maybe willingly. Theories were put forth in Ann's comments that it is either a) a trial balloon to gauge the public reaction to Gorelick (they could have guessed!) or (more plausibly, to me) a way of making whoever is the pick look good by comparison.


Anyway, Obama's appointments will be like a compass showing which way the needle points the direction of the next four years' journey.


It's not that the NYT is being played, it's that during this time there are ALWAYS trial balloons being floated.

On the one hand, sometimes these stories are floated by the transition team in order to gauge potential reaction. Let the carping come BEFORE the candidate brings them on the podium, and see if it'll be too heavy a price to pay for that person's services.

On the other hand, sometimes it is supporters of that individual, trying to boost their public profile, maybe trying to get their name thrown into consideration to begin with.

And finally, sometimes you let word out that you are "seriously considering" somebody as a courtesy to them. You like them, you want their support, but you'd never actually appoint them to anything. You just want them to show them the courtesy of putting them on the "short list."

We have no way of knowing, at this point, which of those it is. In the event that it's reason one, it is important that the public respond and treat stories like this similarly (lest the Administration mistakenly think they will have clear sailing on the potential nominee), but it's too early to hold Obama himself responsible for this.

You're right, though, that if the story is a trial balloon from the Obama team, it suggests a very tin ear, for nobody to realize ahead of time what a complete non-starter such an appointment would be.

Hmm.... the more I think of it, the more this actually looks like an anti-Clinton move by the Obama people. Gorelick is a Clinton supporter through-and-through. Put her name out there, publicly showing that you're treating Clinton with respect, but at the same time highlighting the taint that associates with many of the Clinton loyalists. That's serious political hardball.


Ha ha! Good thinking, Pat! Takes someone who's actually been close to politics. That makes a great deal of sense, in that it's intelligent (Machiavellian) and one thing these people are not is stupid!


or (more plausibly, to me) a way of making whoever is the pick look good by comparison.

So Obama's doing a "Harriet Miers" with Gorelick?

Ruth Anne

Maybe that cleverly devious Rahm Immanuel is trying to discover the insider rats. He gives 'trial balloon' names to various people, each unique, so that when that name appears in the news, Rahm knows, 'Aha! John Smith is the rat bastard!' to whom he gave the name of Gore Relic.


Okay, assume Obama & Co. are using Pat's Back-slash-and-burn policy to mangle Clinton people. (The use of Podesta & Emmanuel makes me doubt that, but still.) Why should this make anyone feel as though Obama isn't just taking political nastiness to even new heights?

Ruth Anne, all Rahm would know in your senario is that the person he told the name to had spoken to someone else, not that they had leaked to the press. I imagine staffers must chat all the time, even about 'top secret' info. I know they have in every setting I've been involved in.

Ruth Anne

Outis: Perhaps true; however, you could follow the breadcrumbs back to your rat. It's fine for people with the proper security clearance to discuss amongst themselves; it's not fine for anyone with a clearance to go to the press.


Whether he goes off into the woods, wading through kudzu and poison ivy to make a toxic and foolish pick like Gorelick or merely stays in the deep rough with some left-leaning cronies, notice what's not happening here (not yet anyway): any serious discussion of an ideologically centrist or pragmatic (much less mildly conservative) pick who might serve to build bridges, heal wounds or use olive branches to begin stitching back together a deeply divided country.

(Based on vote percentages, if the country post-2004 was deemed 'deeply divided', it must be termed 'just a teeny bit less divided' now).

Obama's picks will determine which of two versions of 'unity' he meant when he used the term in his campaign: the version favored by Clinton (triangulation) or that which has been more characteristic of Vladimir Putin ("What part of 'unite' did you not understand?!")


Only once actual appointments start getting made (rather than just rumors of possible appointments floated) will we actually be able to get a handle on which way the new administration is going to go. One might hope that determining that would involve taking the whole gamut of appointments into consideration -- both who gets appointed and which position they get appointed to.

But somehow I suspect that everybody will focus on just a couple, probably just a couple which "prove" their existing opinion of what will happen, and ignore the majority. As I'm sure Pat can confirm, a new administration will have to end up with people from all across the spectrum. The real question is: how many from where? The government is so huge that there are a lot of really minor places to put people who are just being appointed to make all factions feel included. And there is a difference, after all, between taking a long-time lobbyist for Chevron or BP and making him the head of the EPA vs. making him, for example, the director of FEMA. Same guy either way, but one position says "to hell with the environmentalists" while the other does not. (OK, no doubt there are better alternatives I could have come up with. But you get the idea.)


"So I will cling instead to the wan hope that the NYT doesn't know what it's talking about."

Hardly be the first time.

Kirk Parker

but one position says "to hell with the environmentalists"

... ... ... I'm still waiting for the downside here...

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

New on FacTotem, my Natural History Blog

Jacques' Story: Escape From the Gulag

The AmbivAbortion Rant

Debating Intelligent Design


  • Listed on Blogwise

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2004