One of the big questions for celebrity Democrats is whom to endorse. We know that Jake was a Kerry supporter in 2004. It's a shame that we probably won't get to see him hitting the campaign trail next year the way he did then:
But how cool would it be for Stephen to direct a new "Rock the vote" ad, maybe with Reese this time?
Also, one wonders if Jake's old friend Chelsea Clinton is pressuring him to support her mother! Perhaps that was one of the topics du nuit when Jake and Chelsea had dinner recently.
I had always assumed that Reese was a conservative. When I learned that she supported Hillary Clinton in the past, I immediately liked her more. I wonder if Jake did, too!
Reese might be less of a partisan than I am, though. She recently did a PSA for "Divided We Fail," a campaign for all citizens to work together. Nice sentiment, especially at the holidays!
This post brought to you by The National Gyllenhaalic Party. Photos couresy of IHJ, Glamour Reese Witherspoon
28 comments:
I think they support Obama now. All their friends seem to support Obama.
Unless they like supporting a perpetual technocratic one-party, two-family power structure in Washington DC.
I'm just saying...
I would think less of them if I knew they supported Hillary.
Hillary's definitely going to lose to Obama BTW.
I would certainly not think less of them for supporting Hillary. I'd be all for it! But Jake's mother, Naomi, is a Barak supporter. I meant to include that in the last post.
I am sure both Jake and Reese will support the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is. As will I!
I do agree that the family rule in Washington is troubling. But I far prefer the Clintons in power to the Bushes.
I actually came back to write that...that Naomi openly supports Obama. Funny you mentioned it first.
Honestly, I think they are sitting this one out. I think they like them both.
Personally, I don't like Hillary. I think Hillary cares about Hillary, and that is dangerous given the times we live in. The US needs a leader now more than ever who will bring change to the corrupt practices in DC. I don't think Hillary will do what is necessary to remove their taint, in fact I think her goal is to suede them to support her. I have always felt that the Clintons were never offended by the things the Bush Administration has done, they are only upset that it wasn't them at the helm. I honestly believe that. That little tubby prick Hillary has working for her, Mark Penn, is her version of Karl Rove.
I want to support the Clintons, but I just can't without feeling like a hypocrite.
Just my opinion...
As for something that was written in the other thread about the Reese/Jake timeline.
I believe that they were seeing together much sooner than first thought as well. But I don't think it was in November when those first photos surfaced. Think about it, she had filed for divorce one week earlier. She and Jake HAD NO SCENES together, which meant that they weren't even working on the same days. I seriously doubt that Reese, after working 12 to 14 hour days, would ignore her children who had just learned their parents had split up, to hang out with a new guy. Maybe she was interested then, but there was nothing going on, IMO.
It would be so out of character for her to do that. Also, don't forget that interview Reese gave recently about how she couldn't leave her car around last Christmas. That doesn't sound like someone starting a new relationship.
Second, Jake's filming sessions in Morocco for Rendition took place in two sections: first, mid-January to early February; second early March to mid-March. He filmed the torture scenes in Jan/Feb and all the other scenes in March.
So the window for their starting a relationship leaves really only early January and/or February as possibilities.
I think that Feb. issue of GQ is a huge hint. In that interview, when asked about what he looks for in a wife, he was basically describing Reese.
The interview was probably given in early January. So I think it's safe to assume that at that point, Jake was already either openly pursuing Reese or had her in his sights as a possible girlfriend.
At this point, I think it was mostly email exchanges and phone calls going on between them and I think they started "dating" in February.
By the time of the Academy Awards, Reese had this little jump in her step that only comes from being with a new man. I noticed it THAT DAY before I even knew they were together. She did this little giration on the red carpet that was very telling. She didn't have that look even at the Golden Globes (which was also attended by Jake BTW).
This is what happened, IMO.
Hi Sarah,
I see you and I are having a bit of campaign fatigue. Where is Jake w hen we need him? He could certainly brighten up my campaign life this week.
You've amassed some fantastic videos; Jake and Peter rocked the vote for sure. I hadn't seen the 'Divided We Fall video.' TY:)
I'd heard about the Chelsea Clinton interview but had never read it until tonight. TY again:)
I can't stop laughing about the Jake werewolf comment. Girl, where do you find all these gems.
Hillary does need help, having lost
5-6% of her female base this month, putting her in a dead heat, with Obama in New Hampshire.
I think no less of them no matter who they vote for, whether it's Obama or Clinton, as long as they remain Democrats:):)
I wonder if Jake is still planning to do Farragut North with Mike Nichols...it was supposed to open around November 2008. I read someplace that Leonardo and Matt Damon have the movie rights.
One more thing...
Can someone help me out? On the old Gyllenspoon board, there were two competing interviews with Jake and Reese.
In the interview involving Reese, she described herself as someone who is...pensive or thinks things through. But she used a specific word, that I have since forgotten (it begins with an A). It was also the interview where she said that her daughter Ava hates it when Reese talks about her and how her homework is getting so hard that she feels that next year she won't understand it herself.
Could someone tell me what that word is? I have tried to remember that word now for, at least, three days and can not for the life of me. Obviously it's one I rarely use, lol.
Could anyone help? It's driving me crazy.
This guilty pleasure is so much fun...cause I like both of them so much.
Supposedly, Jake reintroduced himself to Reese when had to do Rendition re-shoots in LA this past March.
My favorite early on Jake/Reese snap from Critics Choice awards 2006, makes me feel that he was very fond of her even then...but he wouldn't make a move because she was married;check out the body language.
s
Jake Reese 2006 early Infatuation? A
Jake and Reese Infatuation 2006 B
JP, I can't help you with the word yet, but I'll do a little digging to see if I can come up with it. Was it a video or print interview?
I disagree with your assessment of Hillary. I certainly don't think she's any more ambitious or self-promoting than the othr politicins in the field. There isn't a selfless one among them.
I also think Reese's pain and anguish over the divorce were real. I don't think Jake and she were in a relationship in November. But whenever it happened, it happened fast and hard.
That really could be taken the wrong way :)
Sass, I love those shots of Jake and Reese at that awards show. Aside from trying to figure out the chemistry, they both look great. Especially Jake.
And yes, I have definite campaign fatigue. I am disappointed that women aren't doing more for Hillary. I know some people have valid reasons not to support her, but there's a lot of kneejerk anti-feminism out there (not you, JP!). And it really bothers me coming from women.
I wish I knew more about what's going on with Farragut North. I love the idea of Jakes doing Broadway, especially since I could attend!
And I maintain that Leo is too old to play the wunderkind in the movie version.
The word came from a print interview...
It was during the time Rendition came out. She was doing promo for that film...
Are the archives still available for that Gyllenspoon site? I think the two interviews (or snippets of them) were printed back to back. So there was no link, as I recall. It was just there.
One last thing on Hillary...
Why should people vote for her just because she's a woman? People should know what she represents and support that. I think this fits into the general fakeness of her character. IMO.
I have this feeling that a lot of people who support her do so for all the wrong reasons. Either a) because she's a woman and wouldn't it be so wonderful to elect a woman President? Or b) because she is Bill Clinton's wife.
Very few people actually know what she represents. That drives me nuts.
I would never oppose her because she is a woman. But I would never support her for being one either.
JP, I don't want to get into a heavy political discussion here. I never said people should support her just because she's a woman, so please don't mischaracterize my words.
I don't like it when people dismiss her because she is a woman. I especially hate it when women do that. That was my point. Period.
And yes, I think it would be wonderful for there to be a woman as president. A qualified woman who can do the job. I think Hillary is such a woman.
Sorry, JP, I couldn't find the interview. But is "analytical" the word you were looking for?
No it was actually "ruminate." I was wrong about it starting with an A.
I guess I have a little Type-A in me too. I actually checked the entire A section of my dictionary, and finally searched some online thesaurus site. I went through several words and many of its different synonyms, before eureka...I remembered "ruminate."
I'm such a stupid head.
What a wild and crazy Friday night, huh? lol.
Off to bed.
Reese is a stinky Republican cow.
Ha - ruminate! Good word. And don't be embarrassed - I do that all the time when trying to think of a word. I'm convinced it begins with one letter, only to have the light bulb moment and realize it's something else entirely.
I'm off to sleep, also. Though I may spend some time ruminating on whether to delete the hilarious troll coment above!
Hi there!
JP, this should be the interview, you asked for:
http://showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/entertainment/entertainment/view_article.php?article_id=101140
You´re right, the word was ruminate.
and just for fun the Inquirer interview Jake gave:
http://showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/entertainment/entertainment/view_article.php?article_id=101387
CU
Naomi comes from a perspective I am very, very familiar with and in fact one that I share to some extent. From public comments she's made in the Huffington Post,she opposed the Iraq war since before it began, and has been critical of U.S. foreign policy in general, so I am not surprised where she has landed. I think Jake is doing what many others are doing. He is probably going to be actively involved in helping out in the general election, but will sit out the primaries. Reese, I think has made her support of Hilary, known.
Personally, I will support the Democratic nominee...even if I have to "hold my nose" to do it.
I am much more concerned with what has happened to our Congress. They were supposed to be our firewall.
This Congress would never have impeached Nixon! The excesses they've permitted and the total lack of oversight are such an outrage I cannot find words to express my anger. So, I think UV, U R correct, to forego a deeper political discussion right now.
I have been a political activist all my life. And not always a partisan,but more oriented towards issues. I've attended several national conventions and worked on presidential campaigns.I have seen what state Democratic parties can do to candidates who are not "wired in" to the power structure. This time, I intend to spend time helping a very capable woman run against an incumbent Rrepublican who represents the interests of the insurance industry in Congress.
I'm not excited about any of the Democratic choices, Clinton and Obama included. I wis that Gore would throw his hat in, seriously.
Checkout this myspace, LOL!!!
http://www.myspace.com/gyllenhaalforpresident
No cruel intentions
Phillippe, Witherspoon win high marks for parenting by keeping things civil in front of kids despite split
December 12, 2007
BY BILL ZWECKER Sun-Times Columnist
At a time when many divorced parents, famous or otherwise, use their children as pawns in their vindictive splits -- Hello! Alec Baldwin. ... Hello! Kim Basinger ... Hello! Britney Spears ... Hello! Kevin Federline -- it's nice to see ex-couple Reese Witherspoon and Ryan Phillippe doing things right.
Sources close to both stars tell me they constantly put their daughter Ava and son Deacon first. ''They are very careful to never let a negative comment slip out or say anything that disses the other one,'' a good Witherspoon pal told me.
Supposedly to ensure their children will enjoy a Christmas as normal as possible, Witherspoon and Phillippe will even share that day together, but with both of their new significant others (Abbie Cornish and Jake Gyllenhaal) close at hand!
Won't that make for a fun run for the figgy pudding!
Bah humbug, indeed!
http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/zwecker/692552,%20CST%20-%20FTR%20-%20zp12.article
Thanks for this interesting discussion, guys. I´m not American, so I will not participate, although I really hope that the Democrats will win this time. I guess you have to have certain characteristics to become a politician and to intend to become President, regardless of the party you join. I would guess these people will have to be ambitious, targeted and ruthless, else they would not reach their goal. (Not counting being born into a certain family here).
Regarding "The Feud": I´m amazed and appalled that people elsewhere enjoy this little, probably completely made up gossip so much. Can´t help thinking that these gloaters, who obviously hate Reese for being a successful, organized and ambitious woman can´t have very fulfilling lifes, if they are so instantly susceptible and gullible for anything that may hint to difficulties in her life. Rings a bell?
It´s telling that these people will dismiss anything in Reeses or Jakes life, which tells of old friends, doing good things, participate in charities, helping others, having a genuine relationship, but will instantly fall for anything that suits their agenda.
Sad, really.
I don´t know if anyone of you had to go through divorce or separated after years of commitment. I can recall that even if I was admitting to myself that it was really over after years of trying to fix it, I felt like a failure, like I didn´t try hard enough, so I can really relate to her feelings, even if she had already started to move on, because she had to, or even if Jake had already entered her life.
If we take a vote...
I say you should erase the troll's post. Just my opinion, since we're all being so democratic.
Let's move on to the Democratic Congress...
I totally agree with bobbyanna, they have been the most disappointing Congress in History. Bush is even at that point in his tenure when any President, even the successful ones, would be considered lame ducks. Yet, they still bow down to him. They look pathetic. That's why their approval rating is at 20%. It's not because 80% of Americans are Republicans...it's because Democrats are pissed at them.
So what's wrong?
It's the fault of the DLC wing of the party. I actually feel sorry for Pelosi. I think she is constantly undermined by Steny Hoyer (Congressional Majority Leader and DLC leader in the House). He clearly covets her job and is doing all he can to make her look bad. These people are the least loyal Democrats I have ever seen. They want to be accepted by Republicans so badly. They attack every constituency within the party: blacks, women, labor unions, environmentalists, anti-war activists, etc. Yet you know what reason their leader, Al From, gave for opposing the "Tort Reform" bill? He said we Democrats should oppose it because we "need to let our supporters (aka the trial lawyers) know that we won't abandon them." WHAT? We should ignore and abandon women, blacks, unions et al. (traditional Democratic allies), but stick with trial lawyers through thick and thin?
That's what's wrong with Washington. It's no longer about competing ideologies or competing classes or cultures. It's become about competing special interest groups. Republicans have theirs, Democrats have ours.
This group were the ones who supported the war at the outset and are the reason our Congress has been so ineffective in stopping Bush now, even though they claim to be against the war. They attack any person who opposes the war by using Republican rhetoric like we are "inherently anti-American" or traitors or worse. They are the technocrats I mentioned in my first post.
Whenever anyone criticizes them or their tactics, they accuse them of being against moderation/centrism in the party. To them, you must acquiesce to their demands or you are some mindless Nadarite.
These people, who represent such a small group --- no more than 40 Congressmen out of 232 Democrats, use their relative small numbers to divide our caucus by supporting Republican proposals. 40 may be a small number, but it's enough for Republicans to win any given proposal. These people are the most disruptive force within our party.
And I agree, if we had this Congress in 1973-1974, Richard Nixon would never have been impeached.
The sad thing is that Hillary Clinton is the leader of this group whether you Clinton supporters want to admit this or not.
They are all supporting her. She is named as one of their leaders on their web site.
The reason I oppose Hillary has more to do with what I wrote above and less to do with things like the war for which she is also tainted.
smile said...
Thanks for this interesting discussion, guys. I´m not American, so I will not participate,
You should never feel that way, smile. That being said, I'm always amazed how many non-Americans like to offer, loudly and often, their two cents worth to what's happening politically in America. I could invoke a certain Irish singer's name here but I shant for I know my dear Co-Contributor will never forgive me if I do. *wink*
I'm not at all political even though in my early 20s I worked in local politics for 5 years. I liked the local level. We felt we were actually doing good and making changes to benefit the community.
Can´t help thinking that these gloaters, who obviously hate Reese for being a successful, organized and ambitious woman can´t have very fulfilling lifes, if they are so instantly susceptible and gullible for anything that may hint to difficulties in her life. Rings a bell?
I think you got that in one, smile. :-) There's an awful lot of hate and self-loathing on the internets, but I recognize that and take it for what it is - - people who only WISH they had all that Reese has.
but will instantly fall for anything that suits their agenda.
It's that agenda that really and truly disturbs and saddens me.
I don´t know if anyone of you had to go through divorce or separated after years of commitment. I can recall that even if I was admitting to myself that it was really over after years of trying to fix it, I felt like a failure, like I didn´t try hard enough, so I can really relate to her feelings, even if she had already started to move on, because she had to, or even if Jake had already entered her life.
I'm sorry you felt that way at that time. I hope the years since have smoothed over those feelings. And I, too, can certainly relate to what Reese probably went through - that loss of trust you had in your partner is devastating. Regardless of her reputation as being "controlling" it still hurts. Maybe more even since she wasn't able to control the eventual outcome. And then trying to get on with your life while living in a fish bowl can't be easy either.
It's interesting. I'm not sure I completely embrace the notion that Reese is "controlling." I think there is an entire vocabulary of expressions and specific words that are employed to describe any woman who is assertive and decisive and determined. It's even possible Reese has been made to feel self conscious for knowing what she wants and staying focussed on it. Fortunately, Jake was raised in a household where he had to really hold his own around some very strong female influences. He seems to handle it very well and he's certainly demonstrated a capacity for assertiveness,too. He is no pushover.
Just a bit of history.
I am very familiar with the DLC wing of the Democratic party. Gov. Clinton, Hilary, Governor Bllanchard of Michigan and Senator Chuck Robb of Virginia were among the founding members of this Council. It came about after a series of meetings which began at the National Governors' Conference, following the Dukakis campaign.It was premised on the fact that the Democratic Party was entirely too liberal and that more moderate perspectives were being ignored. It was also felt by them and their supporters, that in order to rebuild the party and regain the White House, the Dems had to tack more to the Right and moderate their views. The DLC was a conservative, "third way" group who believed they were rescuing the party from oblivion. Their critics labelled them Republican Lite.
I have never been a supporter of the DLC, but I don't necessarily agree with the assessment that's been offered that this group is solely responsible for what's going on to the exclusion of other factors. And I certainly do not feel sorry for Nancy Pelosi. She knew very well where her support came from and who wanted her job before she ever threw her hat in the ring as a candidate for Speaker. She was very aware of the people she had to work with, the relationships, the pressure points and the internal House factions. (BTW:Would someone please tell me what was achieved, and where was the follow thru after Speaker Pelosi went to the Middle East on her much touted "peace mission" some months ago? ) I am sick to death of the posturing and the chicanery that passes for political manuevering.
It is my belief that,
when you are owned and controlled by corporate interests, there is no such thing as a "lame duck." And there is really no such thing as an opposing political party. There is only mutual self-interest.
I say a pox on all their houses! I think I might watch a little bit of the movie, "Chicago," tonight. I like that song, "Razzle Dazzle 'Em." LOL!
I'm feeling nauseous today, so I really fear I'm getting the flu. Boo! So I'm not sure I'll be arond for more of this discussion. Thanks everyone for being civil!
Bobbyanna, I completely agree that Reese is characterized negatively for assets that are admired in men. Same with Hillary Clinton. Whatever her flaws, and I agree there are many, she is judged much more harshly and superficially, than her male cohorts are.
That being said, I'm always amazed how many non-Americans like to offer, loudly and often, their two cents worth to what's happening politically in America.
Leaving Bono aside ;) I have no issue with foreigners commenting on American politics. The leaders of the U.S. make decisions that influence people worldwide. And as someone who has opinions on what's going on in Paris, Jerusalem, Baghdad and Beijing, I would never question anyone else's right to speak his or her opinion.
Sheba baby, I couldn't see your whole link, but I'm guessing it's the myspace fset up by the folks at the late, lamented JakeWatch? Jake in '08?
And smile, I am also amazed at how far this Reese/Vince story has spread. People will just repeat anything, without thought or discretion.
On the subject of strong, assertive women.... no surprise that Jake would be drawn to that type. Look who he grew up with..... Naomi and Maggie are his "blueprints" for what a woman is and can be. I never thought he would fall for the Laura Bush type (I'm apparently one of the few people in the country that cannot abide her). I think Reese combines the intelligence and independence he wants and relates to in a partner, as well as the nurturing female strength he needs. Just my 2¢ worth.
UV, I hope you really aren't coming down with the flu! Take care of yourself.
UV, I sincerely hope you aren't getting a flu!!!! One thing that always seems to help me head it off, is lots of green tea, clear chicken broth and lots of water
(70-80 ounces.) I eat fruits and veggies and stayed away from dairy,(except for yogurt), red meat and breads (one serving per day, whole grain.).
Some final ruminations:
One thing I always credited President Clinton with was his pragmatism. And his ability to bring people together and work with anyone to get what he needed. From what I read, Hilary seemed a bit more rigid that her husband, a technocrat who wasn't very empathetic. I hope she has become more pragmatic.
One thing I always get concerned about is the "permanent campaign" concept. If everything is poll-driven, there is very little consistency in the way good policy is developed or implemented. A good indicator of leadership is taking the information gleaned from polls, as informational. A poll isn't a roadmap.It might tell you where people are. It's up to you to figure out how to get them to go where you need them to go.
The other thing, and then I am well and truly done with this, (sorry I am long winded!)is that I think people get caught up in the 'bloodsport' of a political campaign, and don't give enough thought to governing. And one of the most important questions we should be asking, if we aren't, is who has the personality traits and the temperament to be effective in governing. I am not sliding the experience issue ( non-issue, really) through the back door, but I am talking about a style of operating that can make one person more effective than another.
In all honesty, when I look at the candidates running on the Democratic side, I am gratified to realize that any one of them on their worst day, is better than anything else around. Except for Al Gore. Which ain't gonna happen.
Bobbyanna,
I can't believe that you would be critical of special interests in Washington and just gloss over the DLC. These people, especially Steny Hoyer, actually bragged to Washington newspapers that they had raised more money from lobbyists than the Republicans in 2006.
I never said they were "Republican lite." I don't believe their motive is to be more conservative, necessarily. I think their motive is essentially to abandon whatever aspects of the party policy, no matter how long we have represented those views or how many people within the party that agree with them, which are unpopular.
They don't believe in any ideology. They believe in polls. They will essentially say anything that needs to be said in order to win. Why? Because that way they can sell their access to their own corporate masters...
The DLC is a corporate organization. It is listed as one in the DC directory.
That's what they are about. That's the most cynical thing I've ever seen. They attack those Democrats who actually BELIEVE in something. They consider it "extremist" to have convictions.
We are a party without principles. That's why we are listless. There can be no doubt that they are the ones responsible for that.
Corporate Interests and the DLC are synonymous.
"Brothers" SPOILERS....
Ready?
.....
....
...
..
.
Are you sure?
.....
....
...
..
.
The Church scene is in fact for a "funeral." My guess is Tobey's. According to some poster on imdb, a casting call went out to some theatre group for extras. They are shooting on Monday and Tuesday. This corresponds with them filming at that church.
Therefore, Jake will definitely be there.
New post.
Go visit.
Post a Comment