Ed Klein says the rumble is on:
“In fact, since the convention, Clinton and Obama have had a serious falling-out over two issues: the president’s preparation and lamentable performance in his debate with Mitt Romney, and the question of who should be assigned blame — Obama or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — for the intelligence and security screw-up in Benghazi, Libya.We were the first ones to write about this bomb ready to boom. Now others like Tom McGuire are joining in. Add Mickey Kaus to the Borgia Italy speculations.
This new rift, which the Clintons and Obamas have managed to keep secret from the media, has poisoned their relations to such an extent that it could conceivably have an impact on the outcome of the presidential election. [snip]
Despite their mutual lack of trust, Clinton and Obama have managed to keep their personal feelings under control — up to now. But in the wake of the fatal attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Clinton is concerned that the White House and Obama’s campaign headquarters in Chicago are moving to dump political and legal blame for the Libya mess on the State Department and, by definition, on Hillary Clinton herself.
My sources tell me that Clinton is working on a strategy that will allow Hillary to avoid having Benghazi become a stain on her political fortunes should she decide to run for president in 2016.
Bill Clinton has even gone so far as to seek legal advice about Hillary’s liability in terms of cables and memos that might be subpoenaed by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which this week launched an investigation into the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The committee will also examine the apparent Obama administration cover-up that followed the Benghazi attack.
Finally, I’m told that Bill is playing with various doomsday scenarios, up to and including the idea that Hillary should consider resigning over the issue if the Obama team tries to use her as a scapegoat.”
Yesterday we discussed “Nobody messes with Joe“. Now Obama better learn “Don’t Mess With Bill“.
Bette Davis won two Oscars for Best Actress. "Dangerous" and "Jezebel" were her Oscar winning roles which is kind of strange in that most people haven't seen the first film and a lot of people haven't seen "Jezebel." "Dangerous" was a win a year after "Of Human Bondage" which was Bette's breakthrough performance that made her a star -- the film is in the public domain so you can usually stream it everywhere for free -- if you don't have Netflix, check your local library, if they offer online films, they usually offer this one. No one wanted to play Mildred, it was a career killer, but Bette knew better and fought for the role and became a star. That year, the Academy only nominated four actresses for best actress and the story Bette told was that her name was left off and the Academy allowed people to do write-ins. Whether that was true or not, "Dangerous" won her the Oscar in part because it was the follow up to "Of Human Bondage." It's not a bad film and she's really good in it. But what passed for scandal (this is a Code film) really doesn't shock us today. An actress with a drug habit -- one that seems rather minor compared to what we're now used to -- is not really that jaw dropping. The ending also may have seemed jarring to forties audiences but isn't all that today.
Bette plays the actress very well but it's not a film most of us would want to watch over and over. "Jezebel" teams her with Henry Fonda and is a powerful film. It's also a Civil War era drama and those you have to be in the mood for. (And some of us really never are in the mood for them for obvious reasons.) (If obvious isn't clear to you, you are reading a post written by a Black man. Did that clear it up for you?)
Today, Bette's known for many films. Those were generally films she was nominated for an Oscar for but didn't win an Oscar. Here's Crapapedia:
- 1934: Davis's performance in Of Human Bondage (1934) was widely acclaimed and when she was not nominated for an Academy Award, several influential people mounted a campaign to have her name included. The Academy relaxed its rules for that year only to allow for the consideration of any performer nominated in a write-in vote; therefore, any performance of the year was technically eligible for consideration. Given the well-publicized hoopla, some sources still consider this as a nomination for Davis; however, the Academy does not officially record this as a nomination.
- 1935: Won for Dangerous
- 1938: Won for Jezebel
- 1939: Nominated for Dark Victory
- 1940: Nominated for The Letter
- 1941: Nominated for The Little Foxes
- 1942: Nominated for Now, Voyager
- 1944: Nominated for Mr. Skeffington
- 1950: Nominated for All About Eve
- 1952: Nominated for The Star
- 1962: Nominated for What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?
At Third, we picked her as Best Actress of the 20th century. And she really deserves that because she played a variety of memorable roles. Katharine Hepburn has some strong moments, but overall, her career is really a parody. I'll be kind and leave it at that but I'm not talking about her various tics, I'm talking about the put on nature of her life and roles.
So I'm a Bette Davis fan and I'm writing tonight about one of her later films "Dead Ringer." The 1964 film was directed by her "Now Voyager" co-star Paul Henreid and featured Bette playing twins with co-stars Karl Malden and Peter Lawford.
Bette's very good in the film. The basic story is that there are two twin sisters with bad blood. One fell in love during WWII with a man in London. The man was going back to the US and he decided to say hello to his new love's family. Instead, he ends up involved with the identical twin in some manner. When the twin Eddie returns from London she is met by the sister who explains she's pregnant and they're getting married.
So Eddie loses the man she loved to her sister Maggie.
The man dies years later and Eddie goes to the funeral. After Maggie wants to catch up. But only in terms of their father and what Eddie's done. Questions about Maggie make her uncomfortable, like where's the child? The child died a year after he was born.
The tension and hatred between the two is too much and Eddie leaves. Maggie's driver takes Eddie home and, on the way, Eddie learns from him, he worked for the family for 40 years, there never was a child.
Eddie's own life is crumbling. She loves police officer Karl Malden but not necessarily the vague plans he has for their future (an egg farm after retirement is often spoken of). She runs a club that she's about to lose because she's three months behind in the rent.
She invites her sister over. First she cuts her hair to give herself bangs. Then when Maggie arrives . . . she kills Maggie. Now she assumes Maggie's life.
The life that should have been her own. She should have been the widow.
But what she quickly finds out is that Maggie lived life far differently than she would have and that Maggie is not someone you want to trade places with.
I won't include spoilers (the killing of Maggie comes in the first 15 minutes). This is a really strong movie and Bette's really good in both roles.
It's in black and white and one of those films in black and white where great care is taken with the composition -- not just cheaply filmed. Andre Previn provides a very enhancing film score.
Going out with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"