I made a pilgrimage this afternoon to the New York Public Library on Fifth Avenue to see something special: a draft of the Declaration of Independence in Thomas Jefferson’s hand. For a moment I resisted the impulse to go, arguing with myself over the value of totems when what really matters are the ideas, not the artifacts, blah blah blah. Thankfully I lost that argument with myself. Totems and artifacts are important – they bind us to the particulars of abstract ideas and history; they allow us to imaginatively jump across the expanse of time and connect directly with the humanity of our ancestors. They help remind us that history, of even the most momentous variety, is made by people.

The documents, two sheets of paper or perhaps parchment, filled on both sides with Jefferson’s incredibly compact handwriting, were amazing to observe. Unfortunately these were not early drafts – there were no scratch outs or arrows indicating where sections should be moved. That would have been wonderful to see, a window into his mind as a writer, but what we have is invaluable. This draft, prepared by Jefferson for handoff to the Continental Congress, contains the famous condemnation of slavery that was later excised in order to guarantee sign off by some of the Southern states.

The way the documents were presented – standing up in glass cases that allowed viewers to read them from a distance of about 12 inches – one could imagine peering over Jefferson’s shoulder as he took painstaking care to prepare a flawless copy. There were things that were amusing and touching about the way he prepared the document. Though a draft, he took care to embellish the manuscript by hand drawing the kind of large type a printer would use to call out “United States of America”. He clearly wanted to convey the importance of what he was doing.

I spent awhile pouring over the papers, noting the particular style of his handwriting – the way he made his d’s and his t’s, how he used punctuation and, I admit, trying in vain to see of I could catch him using a semi-colon incorrectly (I could not). It was great fun. But what struck me as more moving than witnessing the document itself was observing a grandfather and his grandson (pictured above) discussing it and what it meant. As the older man recited the well known chronology of American independence the young man stared intently at the handwritten words on the page. Watching them I remembered the first rush of recognition I experienced when, as a teenager, it dawned on me for the first time that all the history I’d been taught in school, all the characters whose images and names were carved into stone pediments – the country itself – was the invention of men and women of flesh and blood, frail and courageous and imperfect and full of hope. When that moment of recognition comes it’s a wonderful thing.

An Army of Lovers: Hundreds of people protesting the California ballot initiative outcome.

Protests of the outcome of the California Proposition 8 ballot initiative were held all over the country today. I ran into the New York protest as it marched up Broadway toward Union Square. One of the protesters — the fellow in the leftmost image above, was running up to the windows of a diner and sticking his sign, which called for equal rights to love, into the faces of straight couples. They studiously avoided his glare as they ate their eggs. Walking west on 14th street I ran into them again as they came down 6th Avenue, heading toward Christopher Street. Ironically, they marched right past 15th Street, without being aware of the Mormon temple that resides there. Given the role of church organizations in getting the ballot initiative passed and the [extraordinary role of the LDS], I wish they had scheduled the protest for churches and temples on Sunday. Even still, while the marriage issue does not carry the gravity of the AIDS protests of the late 80s and early 90s — it sure was good to see angry queers in the streets, again.

Clever visual pun seen in Greenwich Village: Obama + “Eight is Enough” (get it?)

In my [last post] I hinted at the Factor that Dare Not Speak its Name in the Obama/McCain race — namely, race. At the time, Obama had just come out of his convention with a modest bump that McCain quickly countered following his selection of Sarah Palin. Since then, Democratic partisans have started to acknowledge the possibility of what must have seemed to them utterly impossible: Obama could lose. A [blog post] on The Huffington Post by Adam McKay entitled, “We’re Gonna Frickin’ Lose This Thing” has generated close to 3000 comments. But McKay blames the press for not holding the Republican’s feet to the fire. The same press that, just a few months ago, was criticized for being too friendly to Obama. McKay’s rant against the press is unsophisticated and knee-jerk. Their bias is a bit more self-interested: they simply want to be in front of the wave. When the Iraq war was popular, they turned a blind eye to its trumped-up rationale. They only became critical of Bush and his war after his popularity was plummeting.

When Obama (or any Democrat for that matter) looked to be a shoo-in, the coverage was clearly soft on Obama and critical of the Republicans. But, with the race tight, their blatant support has softened… allegiances are shifting. [New polls] like the one published this week in the Washington Post showing that McCain enjoys an advantage with likely voters largely on the strength of a large lead among whites is bad news for Obama in any number of ways. It suggests that he has lost the working-class white vote to McCain, as he did to Hillary. And this morning on the Sunday news talk shows, pundits were talking about the fact that 30% of “undecided” voters were saying they might not vote for Obama because they “didn’t know enough about him”. That sounds better than saying they won’t vote for him because he’s black.

The Obama campaign has to address the issue of racism directly, though I can’t imagine how they do it without further alienating the people who are already disinclined to vote for him. Perhaps a major address by Obama, akin to Kennedy’s 1960 speech about his religion, that reassures whites by acknowledging racial fears while allaying them. A challenge to Americans to change their perceptions, as well as their politics.

Savior, or sacrificial lamb?

How wonderful it was to see a black man nominated to run for president as the standard bearer of a major American party. The Democratic convention was a clockwork of civility and unity, as well it had to be given the daunting challenge they face going into the fall. I felt while listening to Obama’s acceptance speech that it was robbed of the moment by the prosaic requirements placed upon it. Held down to earth by pedestrian needs to “introduce” the candidate to the national audience and “show strength” by attacking McCain, what might have been (should have been) a speech for the ages was played somewhat safe. Perhaps only those with nothing to lose (like Ted Kennedy in 1980) can afford to let their rhetoric fly. And Obama, the receptacle of liberal dreams of redemption, risks losing a lot.

I’ve been struck by the parallels between the Obama candidacy and that of Jimmy Carter in 1976. Then, as now, Democrats were poised to benefit by years of Republican corruption and public anger. They selected a little-known governor of a small state who seemed to embody moral redemption. But, unlike then, Obama is not showing the same kind of strength with the general electorate that Carter showed. His 8 point “bump” coming out of a successful convention is only half of what Carter [enjoyed] at the same point in his run and less than a third of the gain that Bill Clinton experienced in the year he ran against Bush Sr. Is it really plausible that after 20 months of campaigning the American people still do not, as the pundits claim, “know” Barack Obama? Of course not. So what explains his weakness relative to McCain in a year when Democrats should be sleepwalking into the White House? Three guesses — and the first two don’t count.

Looks like Sarah has landed her biggest catch, yet.

If Obama is presenting his candidacy as “Not Your Father’s Democrat”, John McCain seems to be positioning his as “Change Your Father Can Live With.” Hence, his surprising selection of obscure Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. The CP [Clueless Punditocracy] are, once again, flummoxed by the choice — as they were by McCain’s rebound last year, Hillary’s collapse and Obama’s ascent — missing, as apparently McCain’s pollsters have not, that this election is more about change than experience. But Republicans are guessing that Americans, basically conservative, would prefer incremental change rather than a more radical leftward shift. They are also taking a page from history, betting that a less-than-perfect VP will not diminish the ticket (think Dan Quayle). Although she may well implode over the next few weeks, Palin could well read as a breath of bracing air out of the Wild West — a latter day Andrew Jackson in high heels — riding into Washington while flying the banner of traditional values, and [early indications] say that her choice has finally given the conservative base something to cheer about.

Despite the conventional wisdom that this election is the Democrats’ to lose, I still think they will do just that. Even leaving aside the issue of entrenched racism, Americans tend to like Republican presidents and Democratic congresses and it has occurred to me watching the tightening of the race that the electorate is simultaneously looking for reasons not to vote for Obama as they hunt for reasons not to reject McCain. Watch the polls in the two weeks after the Republican convention. If Obama’s lead again falls within a few percentage points of McCain’s — or falls below — it will be a good early indication of a Republican victory. But even an Obama loss might be seen as a victory for a country that only about 40 years ago was setting dogs on black protesters. Change comes slowly, but it comes eventually.

UPDATE 9/4: I thought it might take a couple of weeks, but according to a new [CBS News Poll] Obama’s modest bump from the Democratic Convention has already evaporated.

[Click to view] McCain and Obama compared to presidents by Body Mass Index

A few days ago the Wall Street Journal caused a little ripple in the Force by publishing a tongue-in-cheek (maybe) piece entitled, “Too Fit to Be President?” by somebody named Amy Chozick. The story explored the idea that, in a nation of fatties, Obama could be rejected because he’s too thin and an elephantine electorate would not be able to bear four years of being shown up every time his svelte image appeared (fully concealed) behind the presidential podium. Dutifully, the piece was picked up by FoxNews. I kinda’ liked the WSJ piece because, well, I wrote it. Back in October, when I posted a [nearly identical] piece expanding brilliantly on the dim prospects of an Al Gore run due to his uncomfortable resemblance to a small natural satellite. The WSJ even included a cute graph in their piece comparing the presidents by height and weight, but graciously avoided using a body mass index (hey, they’re not thieves, okay?) I was going to send a snarky email to the writer, but she’s already being [raked over the coals] so I guess I’ll let it go.

But getting back to the Presidential Body Mass Index (PBMI) — just what does it have to say about the prospects of the current candidates? Well, the first thing it shows us is that some of the presumptions about the candidates are dead on: John McCain really is a clone of George W. Bush (when it comes to body mass, anyway) — his BMI of 25.8 matches exactly that of the current occupant of the White House. Mere coincidence? Sorry, Bub, this is science. And, guess what? Obama really is the new John Kennedy — his BMI of 22.8 almost exactly matches that of JFK (22.6)! Camelot redux!

However, lest any Obama supporters out there start cracking open their Vitamin Water bottles in premature celebration, there are a few things to keep in mind: 1) McCain’s BMI falls exactly on the mean — he is far more representative of what the country seeks in a president and 2) John Kennedy was an anomaly — a PBMI outlier who only got to be president because his father stole the 1960 election by stuffing the pockets of Chicago ward bosses. As I argued so convincingly in the Al Gore analysis, Americans tend to like slightly portly “successful looking” men to be president. Bean poles may win their party’s nomination — but rarely take the big prize. If Obama truly wants to be the next president, he might take a page from his fellow countrymen and start sucking down the burgers and milkshakes.

The boogie man.

Well I never would have believed it, but Jesse Helms ended up sharing a characteristic with Thomas Jefferson! They both died on Independence Day. Of course, down in Old Dixie, this means that for years to come July 4th will take on added gravity as a day of remembrance for a fallen son of the Old South — the antebellum South, that is. But it will also be marked in other places — as an additional reason to celebrate. And not just for the obvious reason that we are relieved of one of the most hateful men who ever held public office in this country, but for the not so obvious benefit that he provided to those he hated the most.

Helms’ reactionary policies and statements are legendary — loyal support for foreign fascists such as Pinochet and Ian Smith, unrelenting opposition to civil and reproductive rights in his own country, and, of course, virulent hatred of gay people. The man who once said, “I have tried at every point to seek God’s wisdom on the decisions I made, and I made it my business to speak up on behalf of the things God tells us are important to Him,” also said of gay people suffering from AIDS, “It’s their deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct that is responsible for the disease.” But his hatred went beyond mere condemnation. When he repeatedly opposed funding for the Ryan White Bill to fund AIDS research it was obvious that his intention was to assist what he considered to be God’s judgment in its deadly work.

And yet, ironically, his unmitigated enmity toward the gay community was one of the most effective galvanizing forces for a previously ghettoized and marginal population. There is a great virtue in having a clear enemy who acts as a locus around which opposition can cohere. In political struggles where radical change is needed the greatest danger comes from enemies that diffuse distinctions — which is why Jim Crow and its “separate but equal” sop was so effective for so long in delaying the conflagration that had to come to end American apartheid. It took a Bull Connor and his dogs and fire hoses to lay bare the face of racism and galvanize disparate groups of people to radical action. For gay people, Jesse Helms was our Bull Connor. I’m almost tempted to say we should thank him. Almost. I wonder if he was ever bewildered by the steady advance in civil rights that gay people have enjoyed since the AIDS crisis struck. I’ll bet he was.

The thought of it makes me happy.

In the wake of AIDS, with the gay community furiously trying to reinvent itself as a caricature of 1950’s domesticity, one can barely remember what gay sensibility was like back in the 1970s. A bit darker than images of beaming pairs of grooms slicing into a wedding cake, to be sure. Growing up in a small upstate town, the images of homosexuality that made their way into my little backwater milieu were rare, often absurd and sometimes frightening — a glance at a Life magazine photospread about gay subculture, replete with shadowy shots of hirsute men in strange leather uniforms; the odd appearance on TV of flamboyant character actors like Charles Nelson Reilly and Paul Lynde; the furtive peek at Playgirl (which even I knew was targeted to men as much as women). And then there was The Boys in the Band. I saw it on TV when I was very young and it scared the living hell out of me. The movie was meant to be an honest look at the experiences of gay men living in Manhattan, but its over-the-top portrayal of every hysterical stereotype extant approached Grand Guignol. Most frightening of all was “Harold” — a blasé character at the center of the storm, so embittered and disdainful that he can barely make an utterance that isn’t delivered like a lancet. I suspected I was queer and I dreaded that Harold was to be my fate. But the world would change before that could happen.

Read the rest of this entry »

Cheer up girl! It could’ve been worse… you might’ve won.

Could it really be just two interminable years since this humble blog [declared] with such ballsy confidence that Hillary Rodham Clinton didn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of ever being president? My… how times have (not) changed. Well, now that the rest of the world knows it, the only remaining question is: what does she get as a consolation prize? The slackjawed political punditocracy — who have managed to be wrong about almost every aspect of this election — are boosting the Hillary as Veep meme. Looks like they will continue their perfect losing streak at prediction. Obama is unlikely to select her as his running mate for the simple reason that he seems to want to win and he well knows that, outside of the Democratic Party (and thesedays even inside it…), she is radioactive. The Republicans are playing all innocent, scuffing the floor with their Buster Browns and whistling nonchalantly during this discussion, hoping not to give away their absolute need for Obama to select her — it’s the only thing that would get disgruntled Republican donors to open the money spigot for McCain. No, she won’t be vice-president. But what will she be?

Read the rest of this entry »