Independence Day: July 4, 1388?

Don’t let the date in the title above confuse you.  There was a revolutionary moment on July 4th 1388.

But it didn’t happen over six hundred years ago.

It happened Saturday in Iran.

The year 1388, of course, refers to the current year on the Persian calender. The revolutionary moment did not take place in the streets of Tehran, where throngs have risked their lives to protest what they see as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s fraudulent re-election over challenger Mir Hosein Mousavi on June 12th.

No, Saturday’s was a quieter, but no less dramatic, revolt.  It happened in Qom– a province about a hundred miles southwest of Tehran.

That’s where a leading group of Muslim clerics defied Ayatollah Khamenei’s sanctification of the election results and made clear their position the vote should be nullified.  It’s not the Declaration of Independence that sparked the American Revolution.  But it could be the start of major shift in a country where Khamenei has the final say.

The fact the clerics made clear their views on the day we celebrate America’s independence from autocratic rule may be little more than a coincidence, though it is an intriguing historical irony. 

There is little doubt Iran’s Supreme leader, who has placed allies and relatives in high places, will maintain control of the military and the clerical establishment.  But the crisis that has left blood in the streets has now moved to the mosques, making it more diffcult for Khamenei to jail opponents or accuse them of being  American agents.  Whether he likes it or not, change has come to Iran.

How that change will manifest itself is a question best left to the Iranian people, who are no strangers to revolution.  Their willingness to stand against an illegitimate government is the best evidence yet that they value democratic principles as much as we do, that for all of our vast differences and mutual fears, we still have much in common.

As the American revolutionary writer Thomas Paine once wrote, “the cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind.”

With that in mind: Happy Independence Day, Iran.

MICHAEL JACKSON WAS MY FASHION ROLE MODEL

Some of my earliest childhood memories are of my mother braiding (back then I think we called in platting) my hair. She would comb, separate, and then twist strands of my hair into little knots, tying a rubber band around each clump.

It hurt like hell.

The feeling can best be described as that ache in the scalp you experience after someone pulls your hair only the pain is constant. Then, after all of the combing, tugging, pulling and twisting, she sent me to bed. I endured the long, unfortable moments before drifting off to sleep by reminding myself that it was all worth it. For in the morning, I would have a big, puffy afro– just like Michael Jackson.

It was the 1970s and every young, black (we weren’t African American back then) boy wanted to “be like Mike,” from the mulit-colored, butterfly collared shirts (sometimes with the ascot tied around the neck) to the bellbottom pants. But the look was always about the hair.

By the late 70s, I was still one of Michael’s hair apparents, so to speak.  With the release of Off the Wall, Michael introduced a lot of us to the jeri curl.  Yes, I had one– and there are pictures that you will hopefully never see.  The look made all of our afros look the way they do when we get out of the shower.  To keep it looking that way one had to constantly spray down the hair with activator, which sounds a lot better than oily water.  Wearing a shower cap kept the hair moist.  The classier jeri heads never wore the caps outside, well, almost never.

Then came Thriller.

The red leather jacket with all the zippers? Check.  High-water, designer jeans? Absolutely.  Penny loafers and white socks?  Better believe it. 

But Michael’s influence went beyond music and fashion.  Lost in the haze of plastic surgeries, child sex scandals, and tabloid headlines was an image that comedian Eddie Murphy humorously referred to as “good, clean and wholesome.”  In the 70s, 80s, and early 90s, Michael was the kind of guy you wanted your children to emulate.  He was the Miley Cyrus of my generation.

Like so many others, I could not stay in Neverland with Michael.  As his hair grew longer, mine got shorter.  As his skin turned lighter, I got angrier at him for seemingly rejecting the image I once held in such high esteem.  Once I became a parent, I turned my back on him altogether.  The Michael of my childhood was gone.  I grew up.  He remained a Lost Boy in a man’s body.

Now, he’s gone.  Like many others, his death saddens me.  But I am not alone in my hope that it will give his family and fans a chance to reclaim the legacy he nearly destroyed.  I watched my children dance to the Jackson 5 the other day and thought to myself, Remember the Time? 

Indeed, I do.

The Threat To A Landmark Ohio Case, And Why You Should Care

In 1957, Cleveland Police (figuratively speaking) fired the first shot in the war over civil liberties.  Following a tip that a suspected bomber (and some illegal gambling equipment) might be found in the home of Dollree Mapp, three officers went to the home and asked her permission to enter.  When Mapp refused to let them inside without a warrant, two of the officers left.  They returned a few hours later with several more officers and a piece of paper.  Brandishing the paper, they kicked in her door.  Mapp took the “warrant” and put it in her dress, intending to read it later.

She never got the chance.

The police manhandled Mapp, took the “warrant,” and then handcuffed her for being “belligerent.”  The police searched the home. They didn’t find the bomber or the gambling equipment, but they did find a suitcase filled with pornographic material.  Mapp claimed she loaned the suitcase to a boarder and that the contents did not belong to her.  She was arrested, charged, found guilty, and sentenced for possession of pornographic materials.

No warrant was ever produced during her trial.

Mapp took her case all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, claiming Cleveland police violated her Fourth Amendment protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures.”  The state of Ohio argued the Bill of Rights did not apply to state courts, only to federal ones.  The Warren court disagreed, Mapp’s conviction was overturned, and the exclusionary rule barring the admission of illegally obtained evidence was born.

Since then, the exclusionary rule has been a thorn in the side of prosecutors and a frequently used weapon in the arsenal of defense attorneys.  And both sides are quick to point out worse case scenarios to make their points.  Critics of the rule argue clear evidence of guilt can be judged inadmissible for the slightest of mistakes, potentially allowing the guilty to go free.  Advocates for civil liberties say without the rule, rogue police officers would make what happened to Mapp as common place as speeding tickets. 

Enter the John Roberts Court.  

In a recent ruling, Herring v. United States, the Supremes established new parameters for the exclusionary rule, making carelessness by police less likely to keep juries from, in Robert’s words, “considering all the evidence.”  

As with most decisions by the court, it has been open to interpretation by lower court judges around the country.  Some apply it narrowly, others broadly.  According to a New York Times article that inspired this discussion, a federal judge in New Jersey cited Herring in his decision to allow the admission of computer hard drives obtained by a search warrant based on false information in a child pornography case— civil liberties be damned!

The Court says better police work, in effect, makes the exclusionary rule unnecessary.  Or does the rule make for better police work?  Would police be cautious without the fear of what might happen if they don’t dot every “I” and cross every “T?”  

We may all soon find out.

BARACK, THE MAGIC AFRICAN AMERICAN?

A few days from now African Americans will have no more excuses.  The prophecy foretold by an Atlanta preacher before thousands in the heat of an August afternoon 45 years ago will be fulfilled before millions in the crisp air of January, 2009.  Mr. Obama’s historic and meteoric rise to America’s highest office is proof that you can be all you can be, if you’re willing to work hard enough.  Race relations will no longer stand in the way of  “a more perfect union.”  We have overcome, or some might believe.

The historical and sociological significance of Barack Obama’s pending inauguartion as the nation’s 44thpresident is undeniable.  200 years after the birth of the man who changed America’s racial dynamic, Abraham Lincoln, a man of African descent will be the most powerful political figure in the world.  That he is biracial and not a descendent of slaves does not matter.  Millions of black Americans believe he is one of their own and that he is the personification of a movement that has entered a new phase.

“Double-consciousness”

For the incoming president this audacity to hope for an even better day for minorities and others on the fringe of American society poses a unique challenge: how to balance their many aspirations and policy needs with the needs of the country as a whole.  Mr. Obama has walked this socio-political tight rope with unprecedented agility.  Few doubt his sincerity when he says that common ground must be sought and achieved on all divisive issues, including (or especially) race relations. 

But the burden of being the first non-white president is nonetheless prescient.  For black Americans Mr. Obama is not only the president, he is the voice of leadership they have longed for since 1968, when Martin Luther King, Jr. was assasinated. 

Mr. Obama has accepted this role with grace and trademark levelheadedness.  He has challenged his community as much as inspired it.  He has taken clear stances against absentee fathers.  And he has emphasized the importance education and service to others.  Of course, these are universal, moral imperatives that appeal to most segments of American society.  How best to achieve them will require sound policies that may not engender widespread consensus.  His wavering support (or opposition, depending on which side you’re on) of school vouchers is case in point.  Would Mr. Obama deny urban children, many of them black and poor, a way out of failing schools or challenge the education establishment that supported his candidatcy and has expectations of its own?

In many ways, Mr. Obama’s predicament is part of the black American experience.  W.E.B. Duboisdescribed it as double-consciousness, the challenge of  being both black and American “without being cursed and spat upon by his fellows, without losing the opportunity for self-development.”  Arguably, the same challenge now faces his presidentcy.

TOWARD A MORE PERFECT UNION

Mr. Obama will no doubt start his presidentcy by focussing most of his attention on the issue that effects all Americans: the economy.  Jobs, home ownership, and access to higher education have done as much to level the racial playing field as civil rights.  His proposal for widespread infrastructure improvements looks to be a good start.  But here too the challenges of race and class could matter.  Once Uncle Sam starts cutting checks old debates on affirmative action will be renewed.  African Americans of exceptional abilities and qualifications will be expecting a piece of the pie, and blue collar whites and independents will be looking for the slightest sign of preferential treatment.  Mr. Obama has been clear in his belief that government can’t be all things to all people.  Someone will be left out.   Still, the already transcendent nature of his role in history offers, to paraphrase Lincoln, a chance for many to dream that America is “the last best hope of earth.”

IF THE SHOE FITS, THROW IT!

Perhaps there is much to learn from Arab insults.  While I do not condone the embarrassing incident in which an Iraqi reporter threw his shoes at President Bush as a show of contempt, I can understand.  So, quite humorously, (i.e., please don’t try this) here is a list of other news makers this year who should look out for flying footwear.

1. Wall Street.  The world’s largest shoe is in Hallam, Pennsylvania.  Known as the Haines Shoe House, it is a wood, cement and steel structure that is 40 feet long and 28 feet tall.  Several helicopters should lift it from its foundation, fly it to lower Manhattan, and drop it on an empty New York Stock Exchange.  Attach a note that says “from the millions who have lost homes, jobs, and dreams for the future because of your reckless greed.”

2.  The Brotherhood and Sisterhood of the Traveling AIG Executives.  How detached from reality can one group of people be?  They have no right to retreat when so many others are stuck on the front line taking financial bullets meant for them.  The audacity of dopes!  Rip their sandals from their pedicured feet, hand them to a small group of the unemployed, and let them take their best shots.

3. The Big Three CEOs.  He who is without a private jet, cast the first shoe.  Want to control labor costs?  Start at the top.  A dollar a year is too much for these guys.  Aren’t CEOs suppose to lead and inspire instead of blame and deny?  It shouldn’t take a crisis for them to finally accept some responsibility for the under-performance of their companies.

4.  Senators Corker, Shelby, McConnell, and Dodd.  The United States Senate is hardly the place to turn to for turnaround advice, whether it’s the Republicans’ ridiculous attempt to reform the UAW in a week, or the Democrat’s populist call for the head of GM CEO Rick Wagner.   Hey guys, reform starts at home.

5.  Jimmy Dimora, Frank Russo, et al.  Bearing in mind that the probe into corruption in Cuyahoga County government has yet to result in any charges,  it is safe to say that some practices were at best shady and at worst criminal.  This alleged system of you give me decorative, stamped concrete and I’ll award you contracts for public projects has shaken the faith of the people in their local government.  The word shame comes to mind.  So does wingtip.

6.  Romeo Crennel, Phil Savage, and Randy Lerner.  The fans deserve better than absentee ownership and poor decision-making from the front office and the sidelines.  I recommend cleats instead of shoes.

7.  Rod “Pay to Play” Blagojevich.  Please don’t spare this Rod.  The Senate Solicitor gives Chicago politics a bad name– and that’s saying something!  The Chicago media is known for its toughness.  So when Pay-Rod finally calls a news confernce to announce his resignation as Illinois governor, the press corps may want to consider following the lead of the irate Iraqi who threw the first shoes.

8.  O.J. Simpson.  We know he’s had problems with gloves, lets add shoes to the list.  The best thing about him going away is that he’s finally going away.  No more fits of rage, kidnappings, hold ups, and bad golf swings to worry about.  Do you think he will be able to continue his search for the real killers from behind bars?

9.  Paula Abdul.  There’s a tap shoe with her name on it somewhere.  Can somebody explain to me why she’s still famous and Aresnio needs a steady gig?  I wait with eager anticipation for the next meltdown that heralds the parade of kereoke singers known as American Idol.  Please, no soft-shoe.

10.  Joe the Plumber.  I applaud the guy for asking tougher questions than the Obama press corps, but you would think a plumber would know when something doesn’t pass the smell test.  Accepting McCain’s invitation to get on the bus in the final days of the campaign made him look as opportunistic as the campaign itself.  After being litterally and figuratively taken for a ride, Joe now regrets his foray into populism.  Even so, he deserves a good blue collar boot for falling prey to the same old, partisan politics he claimed to be against.

I am sure that I missed a few people, but fortunately there are plenty of shoes to go around.  I may look out for one or two myself.

WHAT HAPPENED TO HOPE?

You know it’s bad when the man who epitomizes optimism says things are going to get worse before they get better.  That’s the latest warning from President-Elect Barack Obama about the economy.  I paused when I heard the prediction on “Meet the Press” this morning.  Of course, the President-Elect promised a recovery plan equal to the task and that was a little comforting.  But I realized something when I heard the grim pronouncement about the future of the economy: the audacity to hope in tough times must soberly acknowledge that the end is not in sight even though “change has come to America.”

Of course it is part of the role of the incoming president to be forthright.  It shows he is looking at the nation’s challenges with a clear-eyed perspective in hopes of employing the proper solutions.  But it’s hard not to miss the electricity of his campaign and the jubilation (for some) surrounding his victory.  The election marked a turning point in America that inspired a sense of optimism– a feeling that– after months of  believing we were on the wrong track– we were at last headed in the right direction.  It seems a faint memory when all the news that’s fit to print spells economic disaster.  We’re more worried than inspired.

I am not alone in my observation that the President-Elect is one of the more inspirational orators in presidential politics.  And while he is getting universal praise for putting together a top-notch team to tackle the nation’s problems, I have a suggestion for how he might deal with the disillusionment caused by the spiraling economy: get back on the road.

I think it would be a great idea if  the President-Elect paid a visit to Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, in part to say thank you for the electoral votes, but mostly to say ‘it’s going to be okay.’  I realize this is something he is likely to do in the days leading up to the inauguration and the months after he takes office, but we need it now.  A short trip down I-90 to comfort and inspire, maybe even bring a few economic gurus to explain how ‘yes we can’ and will save jobs, ease the credit markets, and get the world’s biggest economy moving again. 

Bring Bruce Springstein too.  We could use a few songs about the glory of America and the promise of  better days to come.  Ask Oprah to tag along as well.  A little pep talk from the Queen of Self-Help can’t hurt.  Check John McCain’s schedule and see if he’s available.  A bipartisan show of unity could go a long way toward giving people confidence that Washington cares more about us in these perilous times than the narcissism of party politics.

As far as the stump speech?  It should be as insightful as the one on race and as moving and hopeful as the one in Grant Park November 4th.  Throw in a some Lincolnesque flourishes about the greatness of America, Kennedyesque calls to help those in need, and King-like, down home preaching.  We need that right now.  Get David Axelrod to come up with a new slogan as memorable as “change we can believe in” only with the economy as the theme.  How about something like, “Jobs We Can Depend On?” 

Involve the internet.  Create digital communities that can help people find work or give them a little hope to get through each day.  Send e-mails and text messages that keep us informed on exciting ideas to turn the economy around.  Raise money for families on the brink of losing their homes and make sure a bailout gets to them too.

Just a few ideas to, in the words of Jesse Jackson, “keep hope alive.”

“Daddy, What’s An African American?”

My five year-old son, Tre, is entering the wonder years.  He’s full of questions and seems to ask them at lightening speed.  Usually his queries are pretty easily answered.  “Dad, how old are you?”  “Dad, why does Anakin (Skywalker) become Darth Vader?” The answers: old enough and he gives in to the power of the dark side of the force, respectively.

Sometimes the answers take a little more thought.  We were in the car when he fired this one from the backseat.  “Daddy, what’s an African American?”  Easy one.  I have studied race theory and black history.  I have read DuBois, Hughes, and West.  I wrote my senior thesis on Afrocentrism.  More importantly, I am a proud African Amercian.  I am thoroughly prepared to answer this question. 

Or so I thought.

I started my answer with a question of my own.  “Do you remember the family tree Daddy showed you on the computer?” (It traces three generations of my family).  He remembered.  “And who are those people?” “Ancestors,” he replied.  “Well, a long time ago our ancestors were brought here from Africa.  So we call ourselves African Americans.” 

‘Simple, yet effective,’  I thought. 

“Daddy, are you African American?”

“Yes,” I said without hesitation.

“Is mommy African American?”

“Well, yes.” 

I paused because that is not entirely accurate.  My wife’s mother was Japanese.  Her father was black.  Both passed away before my son was born.  Akemi Mikawa and Ron Govan were childhood sweethearts who met in kindergarten in Los Angeles, California during the 1940s.  A school yard crush would endure her family’s internment during World War II, his naval service during the Korean War, and ostracism by members of both families when their secret marriage was ultimately revealed.  Their union ended with Akemi’s death from cancer when my wife was 11 years-old.

My wife has many of her mother’s lovely features.  On our first date I asked her where she was from.  “L.A.,” she said.  Then she saw a familiar look of confusion in my eyes.  “I’m black,” she added with a little frustration in her voice.  She explained her biracial background and then told me how her mother handled a question about racial identity when my wife was around my son’s age.  “When I married your father I became black, so we’re black.”

It’s an explanation that traces back to a period in American history when a drop of African American blood made you black.  We live in a different world now, one seemingly changed overnight with the election of Barack Obama.  The President-Elect’s biracial and international background are proof that while we may not live in a colorblind society we most certainly live in a more multi-cultural one.  My son and my daughter are one quarter Asian.  That, too, is part of who they are.

So I elaborated.

“Mommy is also Asian like your friend Patrick,” I added.  “You and Ruby are a little bit Asian.  In this country, lots of different people can be part of the same family.  We consider ourselves African American.  But mostly, we’re just American.”

“Okay,” he said.  “I have another question.” 

‘Great, a follow up. This kid’s going to journalism school,’ I thought.

“Can we go to McDonald’s?”

SAVE DETROIT, SAVE THE WORLD?

To paraphrase John Donne: no company is an island, seperate unto itself.  Case in point: Springco Metal Coating in Cleveland. 

Started a little more than 30 years ago by Paul Springer, Springco paints trailer hitches, wheels, and other metals used by the automotive industry.

“I started this company with just one employee,” Springer says, “me.”

Now Springer employs 175 people, nearly a third fewer than this time last year.  The volatility in the automotive industry has forced  him to let some people go.  Four dollar gas brought SUV and truck sales to a screeching halt and sent one of his customers into bankruptcy protection.  Another took its business off-shore. 

As it turns out, the impact of higher gas prices is equivalent to the calm before the storm.  The Big Three carmakers say they need a bailout to survive, perhaps none more than Springco’s biggest customer: General Motors.  GM accounts for 80 percent of Springer’s business.   If what GM says is true, that it only has enough cash to make it to January, than 2009 looks to be another tough year for Springco unless Congress approves the bailout.

The role of suppliers like Springco is seldom discussed in the debate over whether taxpayers should rescue an industry that may in fact be responsible for its pending demise.  Already infuriated by the 700 billion dollar bailout of the financial industry, taxpayers are saying a collective, “enough!”  But in an economy dependent on a global supply chain, should anger give way to pragmatism?

With the rising costs associated with organized labor, suppliers augment the production capacity of automakers.  Most of these jobs are non-union, so there are no benefits if suppliers are forced to layoff their workers.  Thousands will be pushed into a stagnant job market, increasing the need for federal unemployment assistance.  Those  who own homes could be forced into foreclosure.  Consumer spending will only get worse.  And a recession could rapidly spiral into a depression.

The potential financial fallout on the rest of the world also merits consideration.  For example, Springco also does work for Mercedes Benz.  The Big Three argue that if they are denied a bailout and forced into bankruptcy, their network of suppliers will soon follow, and that will have implications for the entire global supply chain for the auto industry.

Of course there are valid arguments on the other side.  Why throw good money after bad?  Won’t this open the door for other industries looking for a handout?  Chapter 11 protection has worked for the airline industry, why not the Big Three?

All very good points.  But given the potential fallout, is 25 billion too much to ask?

(The Other) Change We Can Believe In

With the election now over, it is time to change focus from national to local politics.  Some years ago, the late Boston congressman and former House Speaker Tip O’Neil was fond of saying that “All Politics is local (there has been debate over whether he coined the phrase or his Massachusetts colleague, Joe Moakley).  Anyone who covers or participates in politics will say that your city councilman can do more to change your circumstances than the President.  This is true.

There’s a lot already underway that Clevelanders may have lost track of during the campaign.  The Cleveland City council must reduce its membership, the deal to bring a new medical mart to Cleveland ( a desperately needed economic engine) is being evaluated by county commissioners, and there is still the matter of a corruption probe into public construction contracts.  These are few things that merit our attention.

We should all hope the call for political change that galvanized an electorate and engaged so many for the first time doesn’t stop with the presidentcy.  If thousands can cast their first vote, then certainly hundreds can become more involved in the day to day matters that have significant impact on day to day lives.  That is change that we can all believe in.

Quick Wrap: Behind the Scenes of My Sarah Palin Interview

As Alaska governor Sarah Palin took the seat across from me, a member of her campaign staff made sure to tell me I would have six minutes to interview the republican vice-presidential candidate.

“Okay,” I said with a smile.

Governor Palin adeptly put on her microphone.  Referring to her days as sports anchor, I joked that she was an old pro.

“It’s a shame we can’t talk about your sports anchor days.  I don’t think we have enough time,” I said.

“Yeah, I know.  I love sports,” replied the governor with a smile. 

My first question: “How do you make your case in the final days of the campaign?”

The governor responded by talking about the GOP’s surge in the polls in Ohio, the benefits of being the underdog, and the strength of their new “spread the wealth”/Joe-the-Plumber message against Senator Obama.

We’re off to a good start.  The room is tension free.

Next, I wanted to know if she saw any inconsistency in her criticism of Barack Obama’s plan to spread the wealth through tax cuts for the middle class and the oil dividends paid to Alaska residents.

The governor explained the provision in Alaska’s constitution that provided for those dividends, emphasizing that “it’s not spreading the wealth because Alaskans already own those resources.”

Again, everyone in the room seems okay with how things are going.

“You have referred to it though as a special payment… to share some of the state’s wealth.”

I wish I could tell you that I was able to pay full attention to the governor’s response.  But I was distracted, not by her answer, but by the sudden movements of two members of her campaign staff.  I was getting an off camera cue known in television as a wrap.  The governor’s staffers started whirling their index fingers in a clockwise motion, my cue that this interview was now over.   I knew we had not reached the six minute mark, so I ignored them.

Next question: “You took a prank call yesterday from a Canadian talk show host posing as French president Nicolas Sarkozy.”

“Yes,” the governor responed with a smile.  The helicopter fingers started rotating even faster.

“Despite some obvious indications that it was a prank,” I continued, “you seemed to be oblivious to that at the time.”

“Uh, I knew what was coming,” interjected the candidate.

I felt a draft from those whirling fingers, or maybe it was from the Alaskan.  I’m not sure.

“Governor, in all fairness, does this again raise some concerns about your foreign policy acumen?”

A member of the staff now moves more into my line of sight, perhaps unsure if I had seen the repeated cues to wrap the interview.  I focussed on Governor Palin as she answered the question.  I thought it was a fair opportunity for her to explain what happened from her perspective (you can see her response on our website at newsnet5.com).  At this point we are exactly two minutes into what was agreed upon six minute interview.  I guess the staffers’ watches ran a few minutes faster than mine because the finger-whirling continued.

Let me make one thing clear: my observations are in no way a criticism of the governor.   She is engaging, gracious, sincere, knowledgeable, and charismatic.  I believe she can handle any question posed to her.  But do the people around her feel the same way? 

Also, it is not uncommon for staffers, or the candidates themselves, to get a little uneasy when reporters ask questions that could veer off the campaign’s message (or as the McCain camp seems to call it, “going rogue”).  If looks could kill, Joe Biden would have put me six feet under when I asked him about his vote in favor of a harsher bankruptcy law.

Furthermore, the McCain campaign, as whole, has been far more accessible than the other side.  One of the high points of the campaign for me was when the Arizona senator told me I had asked him “good, tough questions.”  In my opinion, if elections were determined by candor, McCain-Palin would win in a landslide.

My favorite moment from my conversation with Governor Palin was her answer to whether or not the media has treated her fairly.  It was her most sincere answer.  She clearly appreciates the role of the Fourth Estate but worries it has lost sight of its responsibility in favor of “gotcha journalism.”  It was an insightful response.

Our interview went over the six minute time limit by 30 seconds, despite the best efforts of her staff.  I thanked the governor for her time.  As she stood to leave, she elaborated further on the difference between sharing the wealth and spreading it.  The photographer I was with tried to continue recording but her staff wouldn’t allow it.  Perhaps candor has its limits. 

The governor and I exchanged a final, pleasant farewell.  The staffers in question left without saying goodbye or even so much as glancing in our direction.