About Sarah Palin

From my friend JB:

“The three lines on Sarah Palin:

1. Sarah Palin has a credibility problem. She LIED about supporting the bridge to nowhere in her very first speech to the American people.

2. Sarah Palin has a corruption problem. She ILLEGALLY FIRED a public official who refused to get involved in her revenge against a family member.

3. Sarah Palin has a patriotism problem. She has been involved with an Alaskan party whose stated goal is SEPARATING from the United States.

Go get ‘em, folks!”

There it is. 

Hope & History

History says, Don’t hope
on this side of the grave.
But then, once in a lifetime
the longed for tidal wave
of justice can rise up,
and hope and history rhyme.

— Seamus Heaney


I’ve always loved poetry and oratory. Always. In some ways, it’s what led me to get involved in politics. As a kid, I idolized men like John F. Kennedy and Franklin D. Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln — men who, through sheer force of character and the ability to translate their thoughts into words both spoken & written, were able to change the course of American history.

Over the past week, I attended the Democratic National Convention. I also gave a small hand, when needed, so that the event would be a success.

My friend T. put it best: when you’re working on an event of this magnitude, watching it isn’t like being a fan of the team…it’s more like being a coach on the team. Sure, you’re enjoying watching everything unfold — but you’re more relieved that everything is going according to plan.

Conventions are, by definition, historic. Some are more historic than others: 1896, which saw the beginnings of modern Presidential campaigning, and which nominated the youngest-ever Presidential nominee; 1948, which saw Hubert Humphrey argue for the moral saliency of civil rights; 1968, which saw one party tear itself apart, and perhaps not fully recover until now; 1984, which saw the first woman nominated on a major ticket.

Others are less so, and that would encompass the vast majority of them (quick: whom did the Democrats nominate in 1904? Whom did the Republicans select in 1936? Answers at the end, but don’t cheat!).

I thought that, instead of writing another essay about that night, I’d instead tell you what I told a group of folks on Tuesday afternoon. I think it captures the spirit just as well, even though I think that Barack put it better than I could.

Before I forget, I want to thank all the people who made the convention possible and I want to thank all the people with whom I shared this moment. Being able to share it and be with all of you is one of the greatest gifts I can imagine; something like what we experienced this past week isn’t worth experiencing unless you have people you love spending time with sharing it alongside you. So, hey, thanks! And hopefully, I’ll see all of you soon, and we’ll be able to celebrate in style!

…Words simply can’t do justice to the magnitude of the moment when Barack ends his speech accepting the Democratic nomination two days from now. 45 years prior to that moment, a young preacher stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and spoke of someday seeing a nation where we would judge not by color, but by character.

We are still some measure of distance from that fabled nation; there are still rivers and hills lying before us in the pathways of our conscience and our heart; there are, however, oceans and mountains behind us.

We have two months of the hardest, most painful campaigning ahead of us. I have no doubt, no doubt whatsoever, that if each of us does what we must, we will be victorious.

The choice that awaits us is clear; indeed, it has never been so clear in my brief lifetime.

One choice leads to four more years of the last eight. Four more years of war, of desolation, of increasing debt and poverty for the people that we fight for.

And even though they talk of peace, and prosperity, and reform, we know that we cannot afford the kind of peace that has left nearly 7,000 Americans dead in 8 years; the kind of prosperity that has led to millions of lost jobs; and the kind of reform that led to the drowning of an American city.

The other choice leads, in essence, towards the fulfillment of the promise of American life. It is that simple. Anyone that’s heard me speak has heard me talk about that promise. I talk about it because it’s true.

It’s that promise that’s brought me to this point, speaking before you. I said that I was honored and humbled to be considered a “leader”, but the truth is, I’m no one special. I’m an American, just a man, grateful for the fact that this country took me in and cared for me at every juncture.

The promise of American life means just that: that we are all in this together. It’s the same promise that led women to fight for the right to be treated the same as men; that led slaves to struggle for the right to be counted as one man, instead of three-fifths of one; that led workers to demand an honest day’s wage for an honest day’s work; that led fifty-six men on a hot July afternoon to say that we were all created equal, and then led another thirty-nine to create a more perfect union.

All of us, standing and sitting in this room, are living testimony to the promise of American life. But in order to achieve the greater fulfillment of that promise, we will have to do what is immensely more difficult.

146 years ago, Congress asked of Lincoln, asking him how he sought to win a war that sundered homes across this land. Lincoln responded by saying,

”…We can succeed only by concert. It is not “can any of us imagine better?” but, “can we all do better?” The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise — with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.”

I say again: “As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We *must* disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.”

I am loath to close, but close I must, else we won’t break bread. I close with the words of an Irish poet, words that some of you might have heard on the campaign trail which led us to this magnificent moment.

“…History says, Don’t hope
on this side of the grave.
But then, once in a lifetime
the longed for tidal wave
of justice can rise up,
and hope and history rhyme.”

First on Thursday, then in November, and at last in January, we will see that tidal wave.

It will only crest, however, if we bend our shoulders to the arc of history, and make hope and history rhyme.

Thank you, and Godspeed.

Answers: 1904, the Democratic ticket was Alton B. Parker of NY, and Henry G. Davis of WV (who, at 84, makes McCain look like a youth); in 1936, the Republican ticket was Alf Landon of KS and Frank Knox of IL.

What a crock...

So, word’s trickling out that the Chinese women’s gymnastics team is really the Chinese girls’ gymnastics team. You have to be 16 the year of the Olympiad in order to compete, and these athletes don’t look it. 

The IOC is taking the Chinese government’s word for it, except that, given that China’s a one-party dictatorship, their word’s worth squat. Seriously — there’s no way to verify that these girls are of age. 

Ergo, my Facebook status: these Olympics are a crock. If China’s going to cheat so that they wind up with the medal lead, what’s the point? The Chinese are making a mockery of these Games. My off-line prediction for these games looks to stand: these games are going to be remembered in the same vein as the 1936 Berlin Games — utterly corrupt, and worthy only of being a cautionary note.  

SHE & HIM

Two things I believe to be true:

1. Zooey Deschanel is criminally cute.
2. The video for “Why” is pretty damn creepy.

1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

2. Never go outside the experience of your people. It may result in confusion, fear and retreat.

3. Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat.

4. Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules.

5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.

7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.

8. Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.

9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into it’s counterside.

12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.

(from Rules for Radicals, by Saul Alinsky)

It’s funny that for someone as radical as Alinsky, the most faithful adherents to these 13 principles are some of the most reactionary people in American politics. Stuff like this isn’t ideologically left or right, nor is it meant to be.

My belief is that a radical, in the Alinsky sense, is someone who seeks fundamental, basic change in the system, whether that change favors the Right or the Left.

When I say that it’s funny, I mean it in the strange sense. Food for thought: how many candidates, how many progressive campaigns, have you participated in where most, if not all of these 13 rules were shattered?

And we wonder why we lost Congress for 12 years, we blew health care, and have elected two Democrats to the Presidency in 40 years.