Hey, you been over to Jingle Belle's place lately? You know Jing. She's the daughter of Santy Claus, star of her own terrific comic book by my pal Paul Dini and various nifty artists. She also has dolls and lunch boxes and, of course, her very own website which you can reach by clicking here. While you're there, check out the new holiday record reviews by Eddie the Music Elf.

I can't seem to come up with a link to a free source for Joshua Micah Marshall's article about the Whitewater report.  In a nutshell, he notices that deep within the report, they've secreted info that makes clear that the previous Bush administration (i.e., the one that was going to run against Bill Clinton; the one he displaced) did a number of unethical and possibly illegal things to hasten and encourage the Whitewater investigation in the hope that it would derail his candidacy.  I doubt this will become much of a scandal but it adds to the judgment of history that the whole inquiry had a lot more to do with harming a political foe than with anyone's actual concern about illegal actions.

I can, however, send you to another piece in Salon, which is Joe Conason's post mortem on the Whitewater investigation.  I think he's dead-right that there was never sufficient evidence to warrant the whole inquisition, and that the folks in Starr's office kept it going long past a proper term, hoping to not have to exonerate a president they wished to harm.  Anyway, here's the link — which, alas, is to a reposting of the article on The Smirking Chimp, a website that loads about as fast as a one-armed sharpshooter.

Lastly, the editorials in The Washington Times usually read as if written, not by some right-wing extremist but by someone who's working for a right-wing extremist and eager to not displease his boss. Nevertheless, I happen to agree with this one that faults President Bush's decision to sign the Campaign Finance Reform bill.  Even a stopped clock…you know…

Throughout five or six New York show-going trips, I somehow always by-passed Smokey Joe's Cafe.  I guess it didn't seem like a Broadway show to me: Two plotless hours of folks singing songs penned by Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller, the most successful composers of Top 40 tunes, this side of Lennon and McCartney.  Having now repeatedly viewed the video of the final New York performance, I'm kinda sorry I didn't see it on stage, as God intended.  The singers are all terrific and the line-up of songs leaves you marveling at the composers' track record.  There are 38 numbers in the show and all but a few are comfortably familiar to anyone who's ever spent more than a few hours listening to a Golden Oldies radio station and — in most cases — more enjoyable than even the "hit" versions.  You can order a copy of this from the Movies Unlimited folks by clicking here.

If you buy a copy of the DVD, VHS or CD, do yourself a favor and don't look at the track listing before playing the thing.  You'll sit there amazed, going, "They wrote that, too?"  You'll also wish that more shows would be videotaped for commercial release.

Most Broadway productions of the last few decades have been recorded but only for historical reference — so that, for example, directors of revivals can see what was done by their predecessors.  Those tapes — shot inexpensively and with an assurance to performers and Actors Equity that they are not for the public — probably serve their purpose.  But that purpose would be even better-served, and we could also enjoy the work if Broadway shows would and could record a video as routinely and effortlessly as they do a cast album/CD.

As I've mentioned here from time to time, my political views are all over the map — liberal on some matters, conservative on others — and I don't really trust anyone who is exclusively one or the other about everything.  On the current matter of Campaign Finance Reform, I find myself siding with both factions: I think something needs to be done about the influence of cash in our political process, but I think the recently-passed Campaign Finance Reform bill is a mis-step and probably an unconstitutional one, at that.  Just scanning the articles, one sees too much talk of "loopholes" to believe it will really change anything…and in the process, we've increased government limitations on your right to donate to the candidate or cause of your choice.  I cannot reconcile that with my understanding of the First Amendment.

On the other hand, though I might side with the Republicans who opposed the bill and who are still vowing to castrate it, I am unimpressed with their motives.  Continuing with our theme here of citing "politics over principles," I am unconvinced that anyone who's arguing for or against the bill is thinking much past whatever position looks to help them in the next few elections.  I am also unimpressed — as is nearly everyone — with our president's political cowardice.  He thinks the bill is wrong and is clearly counting on the Supreme Court to nuke it…but, even with a 75-80% approval rating — he isn't about to take the heat that would come with a veto.

It seems to me that true Campaign Finance Reform will have more to do with fuller disclosure — and making prosecution for influence-peddling and compliance easier — than with limiting donations.  It will also have to involve the public rising up against elected officials who take megabucks from the Acme Company and then turn around and govern on behalf of the Acme Board of Directors.  We don't get nearly mad enough about this kind of thing — or, if we do, it doesn't translate to a downside for either the givers or takers.  Some of the latter might lose their offices (or freedom) because of Enron…but that will be because they're perceived as accomplices in a swindle of that corporation's investors and employees.  The politicians who took Enron loot will not likely be hurt just because they took it and then "paid back" the donor.  What I'd love to see in the next election is for a lot of candidates to be defeated — Democratic or Republican, but preferably some of each — and for the obvious reason to be that they took those kinds of indirect bribes.  Once it's established that avoiding quid pro quos helps get a guy elected, we'll see real election reform.

Jerry Beck, over on Cartoon Research, calls our attention to this article about the squabble between Disney and the folks who control Winnie the Pooh.

And Joshua Micah Marshall has a good, probably important observation on the Whitewater Report over on www.salon.com.  Alas, it's over in the subscribers-only area but it's sure to turn up on some free site soon and, when it does, I'll post a link here.  In the meantime, Gene Lyons continues to expose a lot of the dirty-dealing behind the prosecution.  Here's a link to a recent piece about how Judge Starr was able to go as far as he was.

In 1995, the Resolution Trust Corporation issued a $4 million report by the San Francisco-based (and heavily Republican) law firm of Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro that concluded that there had been no criminal wrongdoing on the part of William Jefferson Clinton or his wife Hillary in connection with the land deal known as Whitewater.  This report was either denounced (G.O.P. Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa, then the House banking committee's ranking minority member, charged that the R.T.C. was illegally withholding Whitewater documents that would incriminate the Clintons) or ignored (most of the media, including the so-called liberal press).

Now, after six years, $70 million dollars and multiple reports of prosecutorial misconduct, the Office of the Independent Counsel has issued its Whitewater report.  It concludes that there was no criminal wrongdoing on the part of William Jefferson Clinton or his wife Hillary in connection with the land deal known as Whitewater.  Oh, it tries to hint that there were crimes that couldn't be proven but that's basically what it says.

Democrats will say, "Let's put this behind us," because they've decided that there's no upside to them in anything that involves repeated usage of the name, "Clinton."  Republicans will argue that somehow, justice has been denied; that there must have been a crime there…or maybe that it doesn't matter since they proved that Bill did something wrong and it helped them capture a few offices including, perhaps, the presidency.

I think both should be furious that so much time and money was wasted on a witch hunt but they won't be.  Politics over principle.

For those in the Southern California area:  This coming Sunday evening, March 24, KCET (channel 28) is rerunning the episode of Great Performances subtitled, "Chuck Jones: Extremes and In-Betweens, a Life in Animation."

I have a number of magical friends…folks to whom the mundane laws of science do not apply.  One of these is Charlie Frye who, with his lovely spouse Sherry, performs one of the best acts I've ever seen on a Las Vegas stage.  To say he is a juggler is like saying Château Lafitte-Rothschild is a beverage.  He's one of those entertainers who has a surplus of gifts: He not only can juggle, he does magic and physical comedy and has an amazing gift for expressive pantomime.  He and Sherry are not playing Las Vegas at the moment but when they did in the past, I'd go see them and grow impatient for the nude women to get off the stage so Charlie would come back out and juggle more Indian Clubs.  Then we'd go out to dinner afterwards and, in the restaurant, Charlie would juggle the plate and the silverware and the water glasses and, if the waitress looked light enough, the waitress.

He's a very funny boy and he's been doing this kind of thing all his life.  Recently, he put together a little "how-to" tape demonstrating a few of his stunts.  It's called Eccentricks and, while its intended audience is other performers, it's the kind of thing I'd have killed-for when I was a pre-teen.  If you have a kid and you'd like to inspire him to run away from home and join the circus, this is the tape that'll do it.  Surf over to Charlie's website where you can order a copy…and watch this space for info on the next time his act — Charlie Frye & Co. — plays Las Vegas.

Today's bitch about reporters is one my friends have heard out of me for years: The tendency to speak of elections in the future as if someone has a worthwhile notion of who'll be running, let alone who will win.  The next time we go to the polls to cast ballots for president is 959 days in the future.  No one has a clue who'll be running and how we'll feel about any of them by then.  Someone may die.  Someone else may get caught in a scandal of monumental proportion.  There may be more terrorist attacks or some marked victory over those who committed the last biggie.  The economy may go way, way up or way, way down.  And at least one prominent contender — you can just about bet on this one — will go out and say something so all-fired stupid as to marginalize his candidacy.

Everyone knows it's way too early to project whether Bush will run or win or, if not, who will.  But, as reporter Jack Germond once said, "We aren't paid to say, 'I don't know.'"  So they say things even when they don't know, aided by the Bush fans/detractors who are over-eager to declare that G.W.B. will win in a landslide or be ousted from office.  I especially love the pundits who say, "It's way too early to tell who'll run" and then, in the next breath, tell us not only who'll run but how many states each will carry.

Among reporters these days, one sees a tremendous personal contempt for Al Gore and an eagerness to write him off.  I am no fan of the man and hope not to see his name on my ballot.  Still, he did get more votes for President than the man currently in the White House.  I'm not sure that doesn't trump all the catty remarks about his beard (which he has now shaved-off) or wardrobe choices.  I also suspect that, at some point, the pendulum will swing back and we'll be reading of Al Gore's remarkable comeback…not that that means he'll be the Democratic nominee.

Here's one example of how things can change.  One year before the '92 election, Saturday Night Live did a sketch in which various theoretical Democratic presidential contenders debated.  The premise was that none of them wanted to be the guy who lost to Bush, and each argued that he should not be the candidate.  That's how unbeatable the previous President Bush looked then…only 365 days before Election Day.  Somehow, Bush lost that election.

"Professor" Irwin Corey is the World's Foremost Authority on…well, I never knew what.  Or cared.  After all, just being the World's Foremost Authority is an achievement unto itself, isn't it?  Are you the World's Foremost Authority on anything?  I always found the man very funny, especially in the days when talk show hosts didn't insist on having every second of their program planned and scripted down to the nth degree.  Corey — the man who once said, "If we don't change our direction soon, we run the risk of ending up exactly where we're heading" — is eighty-something years of age and, according to my pal Larry Steller, just as incoherently hysterical as ever.

Larry was prompted to go see the Prof, who performs every Sunday evening at the New York Comedy Club, because I posted a link to www.irwincorey.com.  The original idea was to get a whole group together but Larry was only able to drum up one friend and, as it happened, the two of them comprised the entire audience.  Larry files this report…

Richard Corey [son of Irwin] did a funny-enough warm-up and intro, centered around an impression of Andy Kaufman doing an impression of Elvis, which Richard said he had done so many times it had now become an impression of himself doing an impression of Andy Kaufman doing an impression of Elvis.  He then started to introduce The Professor, but was harangued off-stage by Corey, correcting him with such timely advice as "You've already established that there are no ladies present, so why do you persist in saying 'Ladies and Gentlemen' when there are only these two gentlemen here?"

So Corey got his laughs before taking the stage, and it just got better.  It was a fun, exciting and wonderfully unique night for me that had to be no-fun and demoralizing for Corey — he had an audience of two — yet he gave it his all.  He went on with the show, peppering his act with appropriate lack-of-audience jibes, and gave as good a show as I had hoped, with a solid performance worthy of a full house.  And that is the measure of a true professional.  I will loudly sing the man's praises from now on, because no one would have blamed him if he'd given a lesser performance.

Me again.  Corey's playing Sunday night dates at that club for a few more weeks.  If I could get back to New York in that time, I'd be front-and-center for one of them.  If you're in the vicinity, take my place.

Just corrected a factual-type error in the news item before last.  It was Pageant Magazine — not Redbook — that almost lured Harvey Kurtzman away from MAD.  And I can even tell you why I got it wrong.  The late Archie Goodwin, whose early comic book writing/editing reminded many of Kurtzman's, was at one time on the editorial staff of Redbook.  Ergo, the association.

Thanks to Batton Lash for the catch.  If you're not reading Batton's Supernatural Law, you're missing one of the cleverest comic books out today.  Here's a link to a page that'll tell you all you need to know about it.

Speaking of MAD — as I was, about an hour ago — this is the cover of a recent catalog for Lands' End, a company which sells stylish clothing.  Or, at least, they used to sell stylish clothing. Is there anyone you'd less want to look like when selecting your wardrobe than Alfred E. Neuman?  But, then again, maybe this is marketing genius.  For years, we've all been inundated by catalogs featuring models whose looks we can never hope to equal, no matter what we purchase from those pages.  I mean, I can empty my bank account buying Brooks Brothers shirts.  I'm still not going to look like the male models wearing those perfectly-tailored outfits on perfectly-toned torsos.  And it's not like those ladies in the Victoria's Secret catalog would have any trouble getting their men fired-up if they didn't wear Victoria's Secret undies.

(I've never quite understood the premise behind sexy lingerie.  If it's any good, it shouldn't stay on for very long, should it?)  Anyway, we can all purchase Lands' End shirts and pants and sweat socks and jock straps, secure in the notion that we'll look as good in it as the guy on the front of their catalog.  For once.

I spotted the above photo on the wire services — in conjunction with the passing of Irene Worth and the weekend nuptials of Liza Minnelli — and couldn't resist usurping it for here.  It's from the 1965 Tony Awards and the winners are, left to right, Walter Matthau (for The Odd Couple), Ms. Worth (for Tiny Alice), Ms. Minnelli (for Flora, the Red Menace) and Zero Mostel (for Fiddler on the Roof).  Other Tony Awards that year went to Neil Simon, Jerome Robbins, Mike Nichols, Harold Prince, Jack Albertson, Alice Ghostley, Jerry Bock and Sheldon Harnick.  Quite a line-up of prestigious theatrical names, wouldn't you say?  I'm not sure that they still hold the records but a few years ago, The Odd Couple was the comedy that had received the most performances across America, while Fiddler on the Roof held that honor among musicals.  Both debuted in the same season.

The photo also summons up a great show biz anecdote.  Mostel initially turned down the lead in Fiddler and its makers began auditioning others, including Matthau, who had yet to be cast in The Odd Couple.  Halfway through his reading, Matthau stopped and turned to the director and producers.  "Hey, you know who you should get for this part?" he exclaimed.  "Zero!"

Someone yelled back, "If we could get Zero, do you think we'd be auditioning you?"

Bill Carter is back with another article about the Letterman-Koppel matter.  The ABC folks are trying to spin the story to say, "We almost got Dave" while the Letterman forces are trying to emphasize that Dave wasn't really willing to see Ted Koppel ousted.  I doubt that very many folks — apart from those who have a reason to believe these assertions — will believe these assertions.  Perhaps significantly, Carter talks about the impact that his original story had on the negotiations and mentions that ABC feared the fact that they were talking to Dave would leak…but Carter does not say something like, "Letterman's people were shocked to find that the story had leaked."  This sure sounds to me like the writer is doing a certain amount of butt-covering, trying to please certain of his sources without fibbing in the pages of The New York Times.

It all raises the age-old question of reporters protecting sources at the risk of presenting an incomplete or inaccurate story.  Back when Ken Starr's office was being accused of leaking to the press, you had reporters who were allegedly the recipients of those leaks, who were also reporting on the accusations without commenting on their veracity.  As many onlookers noted at the time, those reporters knew whether or not they'd received leaks from Starr's crew.  If they had, then when they quoted Starr's denials, they were printing statements they knew to be untrue.  If they hadn't received such leaks, then they were reporting — without comment — allegations of lawbreaking they knew to be unfounded.  Either way, they were knowingly letting someone fill their articles with either false denials or false accusations.

Based on the timing and the fact that Letterman seems to have benefited from Carter's initial story, it is widely presumed that Dave's side leaked it.  Carter denied that casually on the Charlie Rose program but sidesteps the issue in this new, for-the-record article.  If Letterman's people did plant the story, then Carter — by omitting that information — is protecting a source at the cost of leaving out perhaps the most significant part of the story.  If Letterman's people didn't plant the story, then Carter is allowing a lot of people to wrongly assume a bit of negotiating skullduggery.  I'm not sure this conundrum can ever be avoided if reporters are going to protect sources…but it's worth noting that, when they do, it often means that some facet of the truth is not going to be served.

An article in in today's USA Today heralds the fiftieth anniversary of Mad Magazine and spreads a couple nuggets of misinformation.  Here's a link to the whole article and here's a quote that I might as well correct here…

In 1955, MAD transformed itself into a magazine to avoid the sanitized Comics Code Authority, which publishers formed under pressure from Congress.

Not true.  MAD became a magazine because Harvey Kurtzman — its founder, editor and, at that point, sole writer — wanted to get into slick magazines.  Kurtzman had repeatedly suggested that MAD stop being a comic book and become one.  He was embarrassed by the image that comics had at the time and feared that censorship — and perhaps the demise of the industry — were in the offing.  So when he received an offer to work for Pageant Magazine, he told MAD's publisher, William Gaines, he wanted to accept it.  Gaines then believed that Kurtzman was irreplaceable and offered to take him up on his suggestion to transform MAD.  This was done.

It would seem logical to assume the change was made because of the Code, especially since it occurred the same month that Gaines began (reluctantly) submitting the rest of his line to the Comics Code Authority.  It might also be logical to presume that Gaines was equally concerned about the future of comic books but, to his dying day, he insisted that neither was the case.  He said he'd changed MAD to keep Kurtzman and that, at the time, he thought the Code would work for him.  (One of the books he began submitting to the Code Administrator was Panic, his own imitation of Mad.)

Just to tie up the loose ends of this story: A few months later, Kurtzman demanded 51% ownership of MAD.  Some say he did this because he couldn't stand having Gaines controlling his work.  Others say he wanted to accept an offer from Hugh Hefner and was looking for a way to sever his relationship with Gaines.  Either way, the end result was that Kurtzman went to work for Hef, and Gaines found out that Kurtzman was replaceable.