The Resurrection of Sarah Palin

"god help you if you are an ugly girl
course too pretty is also your doom
cause everyone harbors a secret hatred
for the prettiest girl in the room
and god help you if you are a phoenix
and you dare to rise up from the ash
a thousand eyes will smolder with jealousy
while you are just flying back"
- "32 Flavors," Ani DiFranco

Sarah Palin wants you to know it's not her fault.

Likely spurred on by the repugnant post-campaign chatter to the contrary, the former GOP Vice Presidential candidate has instinctively, and smartly, started a one-woman reconnaissance mission, declaring that she is not a down-home diva and ignoramus, nor the reason for the McCain-Palin ticket's loss. And while some in the media continue to lap up the drama, perplexed by Palin's decision to do something other than retreat to Alaska with her pit bull tail between her legs, I can't help but smile at her savvy.

Surely, this time out, she lacked the couth and global curiosity required of candidates for national office. That notwithstanding, Palin's potentially fatal blunder came not during her campaign for the Vice Presidency, but before it. When asked to be a Vice Presidential candidate, she should have said 'no.' She was not ready to campaign or govern on a national level and she should have known it. So, frankly, should have those who cunningly and cynically selected her to provide a boost to McCain's campaign - which, let's be fair, her selection did, in fact, provide. They got what anyone with eyes that work should have expected: a dangerous mix of ambitious hubris and a stunningly sheltered naivity that has derailed politicians seemingly far more talented than she (Richard Nixon, John Edwards, Bill Clinton, et al).

But, they also got something else, something they couldn't have expected, something that clearly inspired the jealousy and hatred that led to their decision to try to blame and defame her before the campaign was even over: a phoenix resolute in her plan to rise up from the ash.

One week out from the election, McCain staffers cried foul, saying Palin was "going rogue," had "left the reservation," was "campaigning for 2012," and "going off-message." What they knew, and were responding to, was that the man at the top of their ticket, despite his considerable knowledge and experience, was being left in the dust of his own making by someone far less knowledgeable and experienced, because she had a skill he did not, one that is vital for political survival: instinct.

Palin has been a greater presence post-election not simply because she's free from the protections of a campaign that mistrusted her, but also because she knows instinctively that she must be. The impression of Palin that would linger and calcify in a post-election absence, is one she cannot politically afford. She knows she must remain a presence on the national stage, disallowing her future to become inexorably linked to McCain's dreadful, antiquated, losing campaign. And let's be clear: It was McCain's campaign. And the loss was not Palin's fault. Palin can, and should try to, survive it. And, may her God bless her, that's exactly what she's doing. In the political game of "Survivor," she's proving she has the instinct to outwit, outplay and outlast.

Now that she's had a taste of national politics, her international curiosity and involvements can grow. She can learn that which she doesn't know, without losing the aw-shucks-ness that so endeared her to those for whom such curiousity will not grow. She can be a national presence as governor, honing her instincts and tailoring her ambitions to be better paced with her knowledge and experience. Rather than wait for the next door to open unexpectedly, she can wait outside the door of her choosing and walk through it not as a former Vice Presidential candidate and perceived albatross, but as the Governor Palin and soaring phoenix she is savvily showing herself capable of becoming.

She will, of course, continue to be vilified by those still sifting through the Arizona senator's and GOP's ashes. But that, perhaps more than anything else, is all the proof she needs that she has risen.

It will take years to know if she will become the Republicans' savior, but today there should be no doubt: the resurrection of Sarah Palin has begun.

Where the Clouds are Far Behind

Dorothy: Oh will you help me? Can you help me?

Glinda, the Good Witch of the North: You don't need to be helped any longer. You've always had the power to go back to Kansas.

Dorothy: I have?

The Scarecrow: Then why didn't you tell her before?

Glinda, the Good Witch of the North: Because she wouldn't have believed me. She had to learn it for herself.

In a 1967 speech delivered at Riverside Church in New York City, Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. told an American population increasingly distressed by the Vietnam war, to "move past indecision to action." It was time, King argued, to accept that "tomorrow is today," and that "there is such a thing as being too late." It was this speech, during which King told listeners that they were being "confronted with the fierce urgency of now," that Barack Obama offered up as explanation for why he entered the presidential race as a neophyte senator. Told time and time again that he was too young and inexperienced, he'd have other chances to become president, it was Clinton's year, and that the nation might not be ready to embrace an African-American candidate for its highest office, Obama did not waver. Instead, he argued that while one may arrive too early for some, such is far better than arriving too late for many.

Tomorrow is election day. Tomorrow is today. We are again confronted with the fierce urgency of now. And, should we not move past indecision and into action, by electing Barack Obama the next President of the United States, we will be too late - too late to salvage our international credibility as Earth's last best hope, too late to turn the tide of division that threatens to culturally fracture us once and for all and, worst of all, too late to realize we've had the power to go back (or forward) within us all along.

The oughts of the twenty-first century, and the 2008 election cycle it understandably spawned, have provided more than their fair share of reasons for outrage to those paying attention and more than was fair of the sort of hapless leadership that left the led feeling helpless. Beginning with the curse of the butterfly ballot eight years ago, our nation slid into disrepute at an alarming rate, with most of us too numb for too long to even realize the great power that still lay within us. No one can ever-again convincingly argue that votes don't matter. Even those who voted for Bush (twice) would acknowledge that our world is radically different than it would otherwise have been had a few thousand votes in Florida and/or Ohio gone differently. And, yes, even some of them might agree with me that it is radically worse.

Tomorrow provides an opportunity to transform ourselves and our world. And all such transformation requires of us is the courage of the American patriot willing to trade life for liberty, the heart of the American abolitionist willing to lead others from the darkness, and the brains of the American inventor willing to conceive the inconceivable, achieving the seemingly unachievable.

I did not enter, or exit, the Democratic primaries supporting Barack Obama. And, though, my hardcore liberal Democrat ideology would never have allowed me a vote for anyone other than the Democratic nominee in the general election, whomever he or she turned out to be, I am, for the first time, going to vote for a presidential candidate in whom I believe. Obama has the thoughtfulness, the incisiveness and the steadiness that defines great leadership. He knew something years ago I willingly admit I did not: there is such a thing as being too late, and he is and always was, the perfect leader for these imperfect times.

I will be proud of my country when he's elected president tomorrow (when, not if - I am no longer a doubter). I will be proud of myself for casting a vote in his support. And, more, I will be proud of the campaign he ran, the foresight he displayed and the future he will help us deliver to ourselves.

Obama hasn't told us anything we didn't already know or were apt to disbelieve - about our troubles, our missteps, or our need, or capacity, for change. Despite ignorant claims to the contrary, he hasn't stepped forward as some chosen "one," puffed up by an arrogant belief that only he can lead us through these harrowing times, traversing the difficult journey from today to tomorrow. Rather, he's watched, with great care, as we've taken this journey for ourselves - a journey wherein we've learned that, once we so chose, we didn't need to be helped at all.

Change. Hope. Progress. America. These are not places or possessions, not things for which we need go in search; they are neither outside nor beyond us. They are within us. And they have been, all along.

Tomorrow, we will return home - certainly not a place where there isn't any trouble, but ours nonetheless - and show the world what we've learned.

Dyspepsia

The McCain-Palin campaign simply can't catch a break. Now, even Pepsi has endorsed Obama. Yesterday, they unveiled a new logo that looks an awful lot like Obama's...

I'm guessing the Donner Party (my new name for the GOP) won't be washing down Palin's "whack job," "diva" flesh with Pepsi now. Eh. Maybe their homeboy J.C. can turn some water into wine for them. After all, the Last Supper is a-comin'.

The "So What" Election

I have a theory.

As media outlets desperately try to find an interesting through-line for the final days of the presidential campaign, as pollsters pore over battleground state results searching for any signs of unforeseen movement, as the proverbial fat lady does trills backstage, I've wondered myself if there was anything more to say about this seemingly over election. How many different ways can those of us paying attention to the same developments write about said developments interestingly? All anyone wants to know at this point is, "How will it end?"

Today's NY Post warned that the protracted drama of 2000 could occur again. CNN posted a story about the five scenarios in which the election could end in an electoral college tie: 269-269. And, a psychic with a self-proclaimed on-going relationship with the long-dead Nostradamus, is trying to convince anyone who will listen that McCain will suffer a stroke this weekend, permanently incapacitating him, causing President Bush to suspend the election and rioters to flood the streets. Interesting diversions, each and every ridiculous one, but, as I said, I have a theory of my own - one I think might just give us a clue as to how this election's likely to turn out.

There are many cultural indicators of a nation's mood and temperament at any given moment in history. But, in the modern rock era, are any more or less valuable than the music we embrace? I know. It sounds ridiculous. But, stick with me for a moment. In order to become the #1 single, a song has to be played on average a minimum of 9000 times per week in total across the country - or about as often as an Obama campaign commercial in Ohio. And, in order for a song to be played that often, people have to like hearing it. Over and over again. Which means something about that song has to agree with the public consciousness or give voice to their feelings in the moments they sing along in their cars. Our music, despite its increasing diversity, is something (like "Dancing With the Stars") that bonds us. It says something about who, and where, we are. And, I think, it holds the key to this election's outcome.

At the time of the 2004 presidential election, the #1 song in the country was "My Boo" by Usher and Alicia Keys. Consider these sample lyrics, in view of that year's choice between incumbent President Bush and rival John Kerry:

"There's always that one person
that will always have your heart
You never see it coming cause
you're blinded from the start
Know that you're that one for me,
it's clear for everyone to see
Ooh baby, you will always be my boo...
Even though we use to argue it's alright
but you will always be my boo."

See, despite the arguments, despite the "other man" who entered our lives that election year, the majority of Americans still felt a blind allegiance to the man who'd kept them safe. Bush was their boo. And they opted to keep him.

The #1 song this time around? "So What" by Pink - a post-divorce anthem of self-empowerment that, this week, accomplished what only a handful of songs in the rock era have done: surpassed 10,000 plays within a week's time. Consider these lyrics for this post-Bush election:

"I got a brand new attitude
And i'm gonna wear it tonight
I wanna get in trouble
I wanna start a fight
You weren't there
You never were
You want it all
But thats not fair
I gave you love
I gave my all
You weren't there
You let me fall
So so what?
I'm still a rock star
I got my rock moves
And i don't need you
And guess what
I'm having more fun
And now that we're done
I'm gonna show you tonight
I'm alright, I'm just fine
And you're a tool."

Americans are divorcing Bush, the "tool." They're not happy about where they've been, but they've survived with their tongues firmly-in-cheek, convinced that they're going to be alright. How? The same way we all do when we leave a bad relationship behind. By not making the same mistake again.

My theory? In this "So What" election, Obama the "rock star" (as McCain's campaign once called him) is gonna put a boot in our boo's ass. And we're all gonna be just fine, singing along at the top of our lungs.

Heaven and Hall

Last week, Pfc. Jeremy Hall opted to discontinue his lawsuit against U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Army Major Freddy Welborn and the Defense Department, choosing instead to simply discontinue his military service next spring. Hall's is a tale that fits neatly, and just as disturbingly, in the midst of the ramped up discussions of pro- and anti-American individuals and ideals. And, not surprisingly, one that hasn't received the attention it deserves.

Hall is an Army Specialist on active duty in Iraq who declined to participate in a Christian prayer ceremony commemorating the Thanksgiving Holiday at Combat Operations Base Speicher in 2006. It's what occurred next that captured the attention of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, best described in the lawsuit they helped Hall file: "Immediately after (Hall) made it known he would decline to join hands and pray, he was confronted, in the presence of other military personnel, by the senior ranking staff sergeant who asked plaintiff why he did not want to pray, whereupon plaintiff explained because he is an atheist. The staff sergeant asked plaintiff what an atheist is and plaintiff responded it meant that he (plaintiff) did not believe in God. This response so infuriated the staff sergeant he told plaintiff that he would have to sit elsewhere for the Thanksgiving dinner. Nonetheless, plaintiff sat at the table in silence and finished his meal."

Over the course of the next several months, Hall endured retaliation and harassment by fellow 'evangelized' soldiers, told he might be blocked from re-enlistment, threatened with potential military charges, and, after successfully setting up a group meeting for fellow atheists and free thinkers, was told by Army Major Welborn, "People like you are not holding up the Constitution and are going against what the founding fathers, who were Christians, wanted for America!”

In September 2007, Hall, with the assistance of MRFF, filed a federal suit alleging that his First Amendment right to be "free from state endorsement of religion" had been violated. As first reported by the AP, "the lawsuit cited examples of the military's religious discrimination by fundamentalist Christians, including programs for soldiers, presentations by 'anti-Muslim activists' and a 'spiritual handbook' for soldiers endorsed by Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East."

Hall's decision to discontinue the suit is entirely informed by his decision to leave the armed forces, and MRFF has vowed to continue Hall's fight for religious freedom. They are to be applauded. Make no mistake: within the armed forces, an apparently unimpeachable 'Pro-American' institution amongst those with the most-famously narrow definitions, something fundamentally anti-American is occurring. America was not founded as a Christian nation. This lie has been propagated by those on the far right for far too long.

The Founders specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) The goal was to ensure that there would be no single, official, national religion - like the one, in England, they fled. The Declaration of Independence was written to clearly state that the power of the government is derived from the governed, a radical idea upon which a new nation was born, making it the first not to claim ruling authority granted specific men by God. And, in the 1796 treaty with Tripoli, signed by President John Adams, it just as clearly states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion."

The truth of our nation's founding does not lie in the lie that Americans sought freedom to build a Christian state; rather, it lies in the bedrock principle that all men, believers and non-believers alike, have the unalienable right to pursue faith as they see fit, without interference of the state. Yet, there does remain a religious test within this country. Some will not vote for Barack Obama for fear that he's a Muslim, since such a faith would most obviously make him Anti-American in their view (as shamefully suggested in a recent "Hardball" interview by congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who subsequently called for a McCarthy-esque "expose" on the 435 members of Congress to root out the anti-Americans). My sense is that a candidate's Muslim faith would give the Founding Fathers less pause than the inescapable fact that in order to become a serious contender for the presidency one needs to declare a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ."

We've many demons to overcome in our national transition from adolescence to adulthood, many of which have been on full-display this election cycle, but none that threatens the very backbone of our national identity like the one bravely fought against by Pfc. Hall. He demanded, rightly, that the country he fought to protect, fight just as hard to protect the constitution upon which it was founded. Tell me, Ms. Bachmann, what's more Pro-American than that?

Meet the Press

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. - The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

"What's going on is a belief that you can manipulate communicable trust between the leadership and the led. The way you do that is you don't let the press in anywhere." - Dan Rather

Freedom of the press is becoming an American myth. Access to candidates, wars and the inner sanctums of government and other public institutions is increasingly limited to those who provide favorable coverage, usually meaning those who simply repeat what they're told under the guise of "reporting." The result is an American public which, by and large, has turned away from news in all its forms. Sarah Palin isn't the only American who can't name a single newspaper she reads. And, frankly, who can blame her?

In the twenty-four hours news cycle to which we've all become accustomed, hours are filled with repetitive, poll-tested sound-bites, given free reign by the journalists supposedly charged with pressing for, if not presenting, the truth. Patent falsehoods are presented daily, unchecked, side-by-side with nuggets of truth. (Barack Obama is not going to raise taxes, in case you were confused.) Over time, each becomes indistinguishable from the other, both simply coming across as sound and fury signifying nothing. How else to explain the inexplicable percentage of Americans who once believed Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks? Or the nearly 60% of Americans who, today, could not correctly identify the positions of the candidate for whom they intend to vote three weeks from now?

Rather than rail against the bought and seemingly-paid-for press, though, I'd like to highlight the contributions of four individuals whose journalistic integrity has grown throughout, and for whom I'm thankful, this election season: Campbell Brown, Jeffrey Toobin, Joan Walsh and Naomi Wolf.

Campbell Brown is an anchor and pundit currently working at CNN. She is the daughter of a former Democratic State Senator and wife of a Republican consultant. Covering the same well-trod territory of her colleagues (Sarah Palin's readiness for high office, race and religion in American politics), Brown displays the capacity to rise above what is handed her and advance the conversations. The segment on the anticipated effects of Obama's race on voter behavior appearing on her nightly program "Election Center," was, not surprisingly, the best of an otherwise extremely cluttered and shallow bunch. Her interview of Republican strategist Tucker Bounds, during which she repeatedly pressed him to explain Palin's foreign policy credentials, became a You Tube sensation and prompted McCain to cancel an appearance on Larry King's show. The deftness and aplomb with which she handled the praise and criticism that followed was the definition of class. And, just this week, she again distinguished herself by being one of the few who, following McCain's long overdue denouncement of the mistaken belief that Obama is Muslim, actually said the following: "I commend Senator McCain for... setting the record straight. But, I do have one question -- so what if he was? So what if Obama was Arab or Muslim? So what if John McCain was Arab or Muslim? Would it matter? When did that become a disqualifier for higher office in our country? When did Arab and Muslim become dirty words? The equivalent of dishonorable or radical? Whenever this gets raised, the implication is that there is something wrong wtih being an Arab-American or a Muslim. And the media are complicit here, too. We've all been too quick to accept the idea that calling someone Muslim is a slur."


Jeffrey Toobin is an author, lawyer and analyst currently working for CNN. He has written the best-researched and even-handed portraits of arguably the four most compelling political and/or cultural events/bodies of the past ten years: The Run of His Life: The People v. O.J. Simpson (1997); A Vast Conspiracy: The Real Story of the Sex Scandal That Nearly Brought Down a President (2000); Too Close to Call: The Thirty-Six Day Battle to Decide the 2000 Election (2001); and, The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court (2007). As an analyst for CNN, he, without fail, provides the most cogent, blunt and genuine arguments and discussion points during any discussion of which he's a part. Following the first presidential debate, it was Toobin who wisely predicted that McCain likely erred with the American public by too eagerly disrespecting "a worthy opponent." After the second debate, it was Toobin who first mentioned McCain's use of "That one" when referencing Obama, expressing shock over what would become that debate's lasting moment.

Joan Walsh is editor-in-chief of Salon.com. A regular guest on MSNBC's talk show circuit, she is often the lone voice of unvarnished reason, as quick to publicly denounce a political lie as she is to contribute a worthy zinger. Her take on Palin's recent Obama attacks: "The McCain campaign may be going off a cliff. Sarah Palin hit a new low -- and that's hard for her -- when she smeared Barack Obama with his association of '60s radical Bill Ayers, by claiming that Obama sees America 'as imperfect enough to work with a domestic terrorist who tried to kill his own people' -- as though Obama's concerns about American society led him to ally himself with terrorism. Break it down, folks, and that's what she's saying. Palin's got some synatx problems when she talks, so maybe she didn't mean it that way -- but, I think she did." And this response to McCain's most-recent debate performance: "John McCain's gaffe... was tin-eared. My first reaction was that it was a little racist - depersonalizing African Americans has a long rhetorical history. But I think it was more like something a cranky babysitter would say. Angry Uncle Joe, or, yes, Mr. Wilson: 'You know who broke the coffee table? That one.'"

Last, but certainly not least, Naomi Wolf is an author and political consultant who walks the walk of which she writes. Last year, she wrote "The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot," in which she laid out a compelling case for how Americans were being lulled into fascism by the Bush administration, including, ironically, its control over the press. This year, she followed-up with "Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries," an in-depth crash course in, and how-to for, American civics that should become mandatory reading in public school's nation wide, in which she writes: "Our America, our Constitution, our dream, when properfly felt within us, does more than 'defend freedom.' It clears space to build the society that allows for the highest possible development of who we ourselves personally were meant to be. We have to rise up in self-defense and legitimate rebellion. We need more drastic action than e-mails to Congress. We need the next revolution."

Our press may not be as free as it once was, but with leadership from these four journalists and the many like them, perhaps we need not wait for the next revolution too much longer.

The Mad Seed

"It's not what happens to you - it's what you do about it."

In life, as in political campaigns, the above philosophy applies, lifting the veil on just what, and who, we are as human beings in context to the lives we lead. What's happening to the McCain campaign is clear: Polls are sinking nationally, and in key battleground states, leading to an all but-certain November loss. What his campaign, and his supporters, are doing about it, is also clear: They're getting angry and desperate.

By now, we've all witnessed the scenes from McCain-Palin rallies, especially one from yesterday when an older, white man, clearly incensed by the proverbial writing on the wall, said the following:

"I'm mad. I'm really mad. And what's going to surprise you, it's not the economy. It's the socialists taking over our country. When you have an Obama, Pelosi and the rest of the hooligans up there going to run this country, we have got to have our head examined. It's time that you two are representing us, and we are mad. So, go get them."

This, after a week of nasty, viciousness aimed at de-Americanizing Obama, by referencing his "Afro-centric" former pastor, his associations with a former self-acknowledged domestic terrorist whose alleged crime occurred when Obama was eight years old, and the constant questioning of his and his wife's patriotism.

Unpack the wildly cheered statement above for just a moment and consider how ugly things have gotten. Democrats, as led by Obama and Pelosi, are socialist hooligans who need to be 'gotten.' What does that mean exactly? (Especially when placed in context to the chants of "terrorist" and "kill him" that have erupted at similar republican rallies?) Can anyone defend the idea that actual harm to Democrats, and Obama specifically, isn't at least implicit at these rallies? What exactly will McCain supporters, or Obama detractors, do about what is happening to them and the country they've run into the ground? We should all do more than shudder to think - we should recognize it as the call to action it is.

I'm no fan of Pelosi's, but prefer her steely magnolia to Bush's wilting Texas rose any day. And, though socialism has replaced liberal as the right's new four-letter word, consider for a moment if its central tenet, in light of Wall Street's capitalist collapse, is truly worthy of inciting violence: "Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth into a small section of society who control capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly."

But, then again, what McCain, Palin and their supporters fear more than anything is the creation of a government that actively works to fulfill its promise that all men are created equal and are, therefore, worthy of unencumbered pursuit of certain unalienable rights. Just such a government was formed two hundred thirty-some years ago - ours. Ironic that these same folks are the embittered patriots now waging a war for the soul of the very nation founded on their fears.

The rest of us, we hooligans, need to be on guard - not just for the honor and safety of our candidates, but also of our nation. The seed of their anger and desperation is being sown. We didn't choose it to happen to us, but we absolutely must do something about it.

The Moment

In the run-up to each of the past three debates, pundits and reporters have rehashed pivotal moments in debates past, almost salivating at the possibility that another such moment will present itself. "You are no Jack Kennedy," "Who am I? Why am I here?," "Are you better off than you were four years ago?," George H.W. Bush checking his watch while Bill Clinton felt a voter's pain, Al Gore encroaching upon George W. Bush during a town hall debate - each a moment, arguably THE moment, in the campaign when one candidate etched himself (or was etched) into the American consciousness in a distinct and permanent way. Watching last night's second presidential debate, I believe we witnessed just such a moment.

Toward the middle of the debate, moderator Tom Brokaw asked McCain the following question: "Should we fund a Manhattan-like project that develops a nuclear bomb to deal with global energy and alternative energy or should we fund 100,000 garages across America, the kind of industry and innovation that developed Silicon Valley?"

McCain's response began innocuously enough: "I think pure research and development investment on the part of the United States government is certainly appropriate. I think once it gets into productive stages, that we ought to, obviously, turn it over to the private sector." Then, it took the following turn: "By the way, my friends, I know you grow a little weary with this back-and-forth. It was an energy bill on the floor of the Senate loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies, and it was sponsored by Bush and Cheney. You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one."

It was those last two words, churlishly and venomously aimed directly at Obama which took my breath away. We've been inundated with reports that McCain "doesn't like" Obama and certainly been witness to his disdain and surly temperament throughout the campaign, but this was THE moment when it became clear that what McCain feels for Obama is more than dislike - it is contempt.

McCain's campaign has provided more proof for his contempt than those two words, of course. In the past week alone, at rallies led by both McCain and Palin, attendees have, at the mention of Obama's name, burst forth with cries of "Terrorist!" and "Kill him!" How did McCain and/or Palin respond at such abhorrent displays of misinformation and malice? By saying nothing. No admonishments, no attempts to set the record straight, no calls to have those people removed from the rallies - nothing but silence and, in the case of Palin, the slightest smirk.

The McCain-Palin ticket has become one actively courting the darkest side of the American psyche, preying upon the fear, ignorance and gullibility that led us into two catastrophic Bush administrations, a criminal war in Iraq and cultural wars over abortion, gay rights and judicial oversight. And now, let there be no mincing words from this point forward, they are not just using, but displaying, racism and ethnophobia as a means of winning an election. "That one can't be trusted," they say, ugliness on full-display.

After last night's moment, and the several this week which preceded it, it will no longer wash with me when people say they are voting for McCain for reasons of experience, foreign policy credentials, his desire to "shake up" the Washington of which he's been a part of more than thirty years, or the honorability of his military service. No one could vote for McCain at this point, out of sheer disgust alone, unless they also shared his cynicism about, and contempt for, an America that looks and sounds different than it used to - an America that may just elect a person of color as its next President.

And that's why, regardless the election's outcome, we've seen the pivotal debate moment of this cycle. If McCain wins, it will be because we live in a nation riddled with the cancers of fear, contempt and willful ignorance. If Obama wins, it will be because we live in a nation finally prepared to reject the sins of its past and learn how to move forward together. The choice couldn't be clearer.

I know which I want. "That one."

Mac the Knife

Were the election held today, Obama would win in an electoral landslide the likes of which we haven't seen since Clinton routed Dole in 1996. This map (courtesy of electoral-vote.com), shows Obama with a commanding and potentially insurmountable lead. (Consider that even if McCain were to get North Carolina and steal back Ohio and Florida, he gains only 62 electoral votes and still falls short of the magic 270 needed.) Adding to McCain's woes is the bellwether of history: In the last six election cycles, the candidate leading nationally and electorally thirty days prior to the election has gone on to win the election 100% of the time. (Well, except for 2000, when Gore actually pulled out a victory, despite being behind thirty days prior. But, as we all know, that irregularity was quickly corrected by the supremely partisan Supreme Court.)

All of this should leave liberals, Democrats and anyone else thirsting for a change of course feeling pretty optimistic. And, yet... Many of us still have a nagging suspicion that McCain could still win this thing. Why do we feel that way? Blame HBO.

Yesterday, I finally caught up with the Emmy-winning film "Recount," painfully recounting (pun intended) the national tragedy known as the 2000 election. Whatever its flaws as a film, it helped to crystalize many of the reasons for Democrats' nagging suspicions regarding this cycle's outcome. Consider what happened eight years ago and just how much, if any of, the following have since been corrected:

* Over-populated, difficult to read, ballots, leading to voter confusion.
* The purging of registrants from voter rolls simply because their names were similar to the names of convicted felons.
* Wait times in voting lines as long as four hours.
* Old, uncleaned voting machines in poor districts (which typically lean Democratic), increasing the likelihood of hanging, dangling and dimpled chad (yes, the plural of chad is chad).
* Lazy election officials unwilling to follow election law to the letter.
* Election results relying on certification by elected, partisan officials.
* An overzealous, partisan judiciary as confused by equal protection law as those arguing on either side of it.
* Voters being misdirected from their correct polling places and/or discouraged to vote on the correct day (if at all) by the other side's "organization."

Add to the above, the emergence of the electronic, touch-screen voting machines (the successfully hackable kind used in Ohio during the 2004 election where all exit polling indicated John Kerry had pulled ahead of Bush in the final days and would become the 44th President of the United States), and one can understand the nervousness.

During the remaining thirty days, as the so-called "gloves" come off and the campaign turns publicly nasty, let's hope someone is keeping tabs on just where the Republican fingerprints are being left. We can ill-afford to look too far ahead, when those behind us have such a storied history of knifing our backs.

The Palin Trap

More than 80% of CNN viewers of the Vice Presidential debate said Governor Palin exceeded their expectations with her performance. I, too, thought Governor Palin's folksy charm did, at the very least, no harm to the McCain campaign. While not always answering the questions as asked (an old political trick on both sides of the aisle), she, for the most part, was poised, genuine and coherent. (That Joe Biden did better in these areas and many others was to be expected, since he has spent longer than "five weeks" considering the Vice Presidency.)

Why, I thought, is she so much more comfortable and successful speaking on a national stage than in one-on-one conversations, like those with Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson? Then, it hit me.

It's the hair.

Until last night, I never seriously entertained the possibility that there may be two Sarah Palins. But, the evidence is becoming difficult to ignore.

How else to explain the 'Sarah' who failed to name one single, solitary newspaper or magazine she reads or any Supreme Court decision with which she disagrees being the same Sarah who competently discussed kitchen-table economics alongside a long-term Senator?

Clearly, there are two of them: one stout Sarah Palin and one spunky twin sister (Tara?), a la The Parent Trap. Call it, The Palin Trap.

Here's how to tell the difference: The real Sarah wears her hair down. Her playfully ignorant twin, Tara, wears it up. Together, they're aiming to confound the American public just enough with their charming hijinks to bring East and West together in a marriage of Joe Six-Pack harmony.

Sooner or later, we'll have to unswitch them, of course. Hopefully, before Tara is alone in the situation room, confusing the big red button with the Staples Easy Button.

Vanity: Fair?

"Life isn't fair."

That, in part, was Senator McCain's response when questioned this week about why he has fallen behind Senator Obama nationally and in a rash of important battleground state polls.

Implicit in his response was an underlying sanctimonious arrogance and vanity, on full-display in last week's first presidential debate (one of many more likely reasons to explain his slide than the random cruelty of fate). It's as if McCain were saying, "Look. We all know this job should be mine. I've served in the military. I was a prisoner-of-war. I've been in the Senate for longer than the other guy's been eligible to vote. I'm a proven leader, a maverick. What can I say? I'm getting screwed."

Because, apparently, if life were fair, McCain and the moose-dressing marble-mouth at his side would be well on their way to an electoral landslide, based on the promise to continue the policies of fairness that resulted in the following:

Josh Wolf, a twenty-six year old California blogger, spent seven months in federal prison after refusing to turn over a video to the FBI, which documented police brutality at an otherwise peaceful protest demonstration.

Brandon Mayfield, an Oregon attorney, was held for two weeks, without ever being charged for a crime, after being wrongly accused by the FBI for involvement in the 2004 Madrid train bombings.

Tariq Ramadan, a formerly tenured professor at the University of Notre Dame, whose visa was revoked, resulting in the loss of his professorship, by the State Department after he provided charitible donations to two organizations with alleged connections to Hamas, thus categorized by the U.S. government as "terrorist fundraising organizations."

Would Senator McCain simply say to these men, whose lives changed irrevocably because of policies he, himself, supported and continues to support, "Hey, life isn't fair?"

As Edward Abbey wrote, "A patriot must be ready to defend his country against his government." Someone ought to clue Senator McCain in on the following: Life isn't fair, but it's made exponentially unfairer by a government that defines patriotism for its people and limits their free expression.

That, my fellow Americans, is why McCain is falling increasingly behind Obama. And, that, for once, seems quite fair.

Palin Comparison

Throughout the 2008 Presidential campaign, I was an ardent supporter of Senator Clinton. Whatever her flaws - personal or political - I believed, both at the beginning, and end, of her campaign, that she was the best of our available candidates from either party: smart, tenacious, sensible, tough, compassionate, well-informed, with a strong work-ethic and a deep knowledge of domestic and foreign affairs. And, quite frankly, female.

After two-plus centuries of male leadership, sitting on the precipice of a world arguably as dangerous as at any point in our young nation's history, I, and many like me, felt it was time for a change. We did not vote for her simply because she was a woman, of course, but because we believed whole-heartedly she was the right woman to guide us through a very wrong time in our history. That she will not have that chance - at least this time - is still heartbreaking for many of us. But, that heartbreak has been eclipsed over the past month by the emergence of Sarah Palin, a woman, candidate, and quite obvious political ploy, who pales in comparison to Senator Clinton in every conceivable way.

Far be it for me to pile on, only adding to the chorus of voices loudly questioning Palin's qualifications, intellectual curiosity and aptitude, but the past week's Palin-related headlines warrant the attention they're getting and probably have upcoming Vice Presidential debate moderator Gwen Ifill's head spinning. Just consider how to whittle down necessary questions from the following:

"Governor Palin, you mentioned that the bailout proposal was about health care and job creation. Did you read the bill, that made no mention of either? If so, did you understand a word of it?"

"Governor Palin, CAN you name any other case heard by the Supreme Court other than Roe V. Wade and discuss its importance in shaping domestic law?"

"Governor Palin, DID you research, and find, any examples of Senator McCain's maverick ways and get back to Ms. Couric?"

"Governor Palin, do you feel adequately protected from evil spirits and witchcraft?"

"Governor Palin, when you listened to Joe Biden's speeches while in the second grade, did you agree or disagree with him?"

"Governor Palin, can you name one of those newspapers or magazines set down in front of you that you read?"

"Governor Palin, did you, in fact, have an extramarital affair with one of your husband's business partners?"

"Governor Palin, do you always copy your husband on your official governmental e-mails while using a personal e-mail account protected by law?"

"Governor Palin, where did you see photographic evidence of human footprints inside dinosaur footprints, bolstering your claim that humans and dinosaurs shared the earth 4,000 years ago?"

"Governor Palin, just what is it about President Putin's head that you find so ugly?"

"Governor Palin, we know you wouldn't second-guess Israel, but might you second-guess your decision to think you're at all ready to become leader of the free world?"

No person to whom asking any of the above questions would be conceivable has any business presenting him- or herself to the American public as a viable candidate for a presidential ticket. Whatever else Palin's flaws, greatest among them is the profound lack of self-awareness evident in her choice to accept McCain's running-mate offer.

I am thankful to have witnessed, within my lifetime, a shift to include women and people of color among those to whom the highest offices in the land are now available (and can only hope I will additionally witness a similar shift to include Atheists and the non-heterosexually-identified). To have female leadership, the likes of which Senator Clinton and others like her could provide, is both long overdue and terribly necessary at this time in our nation's history; to be offered female leadership, the likes of which Governor Palin offers, is cynical, insulting and scary. And not just because she pales in comparison, but because she increasingly couldn't look paler.

Why Isn't Barack Obama Doing Better?

Why is a raven like a writing desk?

This famous riddle first appeared in Lewis Carroll's absurdist masterpiece, Alice in Wonderland, and has since inspired many fairly uninspired answers: "Because they both stand on sticks," "Because Poe wrote on both," and, my personal favorite, "Because they both taste terrible." Carroll offered no answer within the tale, instead writing only the following exchange between Alice and her enigmatic tea party companions:

"Have you guessed the riddle yet?" the Hatter said, turning to Alice again.
"No, I give it up," Alice replied. "What's the answer?"
"I haven't the slightest idea," said the Hatter.
"Nor I," said the March Hare.
Alice sighed wearily. "I think you might do something better with the time," she said, "than wasting it in asking riddles that have no answers."

This unanswerable riddle, Alice's rather American response, and the need for Carroll's readers to create an answer where none logically exists is on my mind because a similar, modern riddle is making the political rounds. No doubt you've heard it and, perhaps, offered some answers of your own: In this seemingly slam-dunk year for Democrats, why isn't Barack Obama doing better? Sure, people say, he's now leading in most national polls; but, others counter, only by a small margin. Sure, people respond, he appears poised for an electoral college victory should his support in Pennsylvania and Colorado hold; but, others reply, why is he struggling so with so-called Reagan Democrats? By all accounts, given the depths to which President Bush's approval ratings have sunk and the extent to which Americans self-report feeling worse off than they did four or eight years ago, any Democratic candidate should sweep into office on a mandate. Yet, the election remains perilously close; and that's a riddle to rival Carroll's.

Is Obama suffering because of racial divisions? Is it because he appears too cool and professorial when speaking on the stump? Is it because the McCain camp somehow successfully stuck him with the labels of "celebrity," "unprepared," and "naive"? There MUST be an answer, you see, because without one, the riddle runs the risk of ruining a once sure-thing.

Were I to posit an answer to this riddle (which I am, of course, about to do... after all, Alice, what is a blog if not time well-wasted asking riddles to which the answers elude?), it would be this: Obama, himself, is a riddle. He has lived a life so safely tethered to the unobjectionable, so as to become a spectre of himself. It can't be as simple as to say he suffers for race, as he is, factually, biracial ("half-white" in crude vernacular), and displays none of the so-feared (read: unknown and misunderstood) attributes of Black America that inspires such reactions in White America (save, perhaps, for Reverend Wright, who's greatest flaw may be his arrogance, but who's greatest sin was certainly not rightly claiming that America's "chickens had come home to roost."). He didn't even denote himself as a student of color on his Harvard Law application! It can't be as simple as to say that he's too cool and professorial, because he is best known for his soaring and inspirational prose. Nor can it be as simple as to say that McCain's trickery, of smoke and lipstick-smeared mirrors, has displayed any lasting power - courtesy primarily of two women McCain dragged into the race: Paris Hilton and Sarah Palin. No, it can't be as simple as all this at all.

Americans like their leaders flawed, "like them," in recognizable ways. Look only to the phoenix-from-the-ashes successes of Bill and Hillary Clinton as proof - reviled and beloved and as likely to survive a nuclear holocaust as Cher once said about herself and cockroaches. They survive - and all politicians like them survive - because they are real and human and messy and fight with every breath for their right to "keep going," as Hillary now famously echoed Harriet Tubman, however blind to their own flaws they may be. They don't lead unobjectionable, intangible lives; rather, they present themselves as fascinating riddles with a plethora of even more fascinating answers.

Obama isn't doing better because, like Alice, Americans can't help but think he must have had better things to do with his time.

Spin Cushion

The guests on this morning's edition of "Meet the Press" were chief officials from both the McCain and Obama campaigns: David Axelrod and Steve Schmidt. What they offered was nothing resembling news as it was once known, but only further proof of how indistiguishable modern news has become from professional wrestling.

While representatives from campaigns make more television appearances this time of year than ED treatments, I remain distressed that these so-called "spin-meisters" command so much of the media's collective attentions. Is there a single journalist following either campaign who doesn't know what talking points will spill from these spinsters' mouths? Is there, thus, any connection to news being made or offered when these individuals are given such significant platforms from which to spew their unchallenged nonsense?

We have all witnessed the decline of journalism since the advent of the 24-hour news channels (and even moreso since the unchallenged "you're with us or against us" patriotism demands post-9/11), but, as with most things in the public sector, we're not sufficiently outraged. Only if we turn OFF our televisions immediately following sanctioned debates are we allowed the opportunity to draw our own conclusions, and assess and weigh our own reactions, before they are tainted by the anything-but-impartial talking heads given as much air time (and longer response times) than the candidates preceding them. We've become so conditioned to being told what, and how, to think by our favorite "news" personalities, we couldn't stitch together an independent, well-informed position on most any issue of importance. I don't need (or want) to hear what one campaign says about another - I need (and want) to hear how we can reclaim a government that has grown more despotic by the year, how we can reestablish international respect, how we can extracate ourselves from a preemptive and criminal war with decency and aplomb and how we can pay-off a crippling national debt. Are these issues truly less important than who wears what bracelet?

News, by definition, should involve the imparting of information that is new, relevant and accurate. What media outlets should spend time doing, and fill hours broadcasting, involves fact-checking the increasingly outrageous spin that comes from the candidates and their surrogates, not allowing those individuals endless hours within which to poke and prod an increasingly ill-informed and dizzy electorate with one push-spin after another.

What McCain Doesn't Understand

Grumpy. Condescending. Scolding. Troll.

Are these the attributes Americans want in a President? If so, they found their man in John McCain during last night's first Presidential debate. As the pundits and pols openly struggled to call a winner (as if national politics were a bloodsport, presided over by a toga-clad Joaquin Phoenix), the above interesting, honest reactions to McCain's demeanor escaped many lips. While most agreed the night marked McCain's best debate performance to date, most also did so with a crinkled face, pursed lips and the not-so-subtle suspicion that words aside, just like in past performances marred by sighs and sweaty brows, perception would matter more.

McCain did not look at Obama more than twice during the entire 94 minutes. Those two times came before and after the debate when, seemingly to his chagrin, he had to greet Obama center-stage and shake the whipper-snapper's hand. For the remainder of their shared time on the national stage, McCain stood, stone-faced, and, at times, seemingly more than a little angry, facing Jim Lehrer, speaking to or about Obama as if Obama weren't there. He seemed more than a little put-out to even have to be there, deigning to explain himself beside, and answering the same questions as, someone so clearly "naive," and out of his league. Obama, meanwhile, took some flak for being too kind to McCain, offering praise when it was due, showing respect in tone, content and body language. The whole affair looked like a couple on the verge of divorce, with Obama playing the role of doting, committed husband, McCain the furious, passive-aggressive wife constantly pointing out what her partner "doesn't understand," and Lehrer the befuddled therapist just trying to get them to talk TO EACH OTHER.

How does such a scenario play out, to those accustomed to watching these sorts of dramatic scenes more often on "Grey's Anatomy" than CNN? My guess is that by the end of the debate, most viewers had a sense that one of the two men on that stage did not want to be there and had no respect for the other and that such petulance, condescension and derision is exactly what they want to see less, not more, of in the political sphere. (Not to mention, the sight of an old, white man failing to acknowledge the presence and contributions of a young, black man will rightly push buttons all its own.)

We live in a world where the ability, and desire, to talk through our differences is not only something for which we thirst, but something upon which our most basic needs rest.

By that angrily dismissing Obama, and the concerns he raised about the past eight years, McCain was dismissing an American electorate that is growing increasingly angry itself. What McCain doesn't understand is that it is no longer "morning in America," as Reagan famously said back in the decade when children played with trolls; it's long past high noon, and it's time to put away our childish things.

Government BY the People or FOR the People

In his famed Gettysburg Address, America's consistently most-popular and revered President (yes, even more than that beloved Reagan, natch), Lincoln, uttered what have become sixteen of the most famous words ever spoken by a leader of the free world: "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." What Lincoln did not say, and perhaps could not predict, was that the American government's shelf-life would become dependent upon the conflict at the root of his very own idea: a government BY the people is not necessarily a government FOR the people. At least not when people vote against their interests in the interest of voting for themselves.

Eight years ago, it became de rigeur for members of the news media to discuss the beer affect of politics. The candidate voters most wanted to "have a beer with" was most often the candidate who won over the working-class hearts and minds of the American voter. The not-so-subtle psychology of this is multipronged: voters want to connect with, and feel as if they understand, their leaders, meaning said leaders must be more like the voter than not; voters want someone like themselves, someone they could envision as their friend, in charge. Certainly nothing else could explain the original, if now mercifully fading, popularity of George W. Bush. And, it would appear, little else can explain the overwhelming appeal of Sarah Palin, the least prepared candidate on a Presidential ticket in a century.

The most harmful aspect of our governmental structure - what Lincoln called "government BY the people" - is at full play in the quick advancement of these two neophytes (and, arguably, many like them) and the costs have been, and would continue to be, enormous. While it is of great importance that our elected representatives be capable of representing our interests, and first-hand knowledge of American life certainly helps, that capability doesn't come simply by osmosis. Legislation and leadership require a skill set that running a ranch and frying a mooseburger don't provide.

I for one, prefer government leadership that's smarter than I. I'm a proponent of government FOR the people, wherein elected representatives behave, act, vote and lobby on behalf of their constituents, with an eye perpetually gazing over what will improve American lives. Government isn't working currently, because it isn't working FOR us. It's working for special interests, big business and the constant reelection machine - even the least cynical among us knows that. But, it's also not working because it's too OF us. Nowhere else in our lives do we suffer mediocrity, much less self-select it, as deeply as we do in national politics. Would one want a surgeon who was a "C" student? How about one who attended five different schools in six years? No one would want that, not when one's own life is in their hands. In the doctor's office, we want the elite egghead who is not OF us. Why is it different in the oval office?

If the American people cannot suss out the subtle, but vital, differences between a goverment by the people and one for the people, Lincoln will be proven wrong and those pesky Christian fundamentalists will be proven right: We most certainly will perish from the earth. Save for those who rapturously leave only their clothing behind.

- Mr. Polk