Like People in History: Write-up of Milk

The most pleasant surprise so far in film this year has been Milk. You have to set aside your preconceived notions of Sean Penn, and what a major arsehole he is in real life, and see the picture with eyes as fresh as possible.

What strikes you immediately is what a departure this is for Penn, playing the sweet-natured, relentlessly hopeful Harvey Milk, who quits his establishment job in New York to move with new lover Scott (James Franco) to San Francisco, where they hope to invent a new life together. They find that the Castro neighborhood is not the tranquil Eden they'd expected, and so Harvey sets out to create a world in which they and their friends and neighbors can live their lives without fear or disruption. His community organizing leads him into a series of failed attempts at running for public office, and his commitment to the cause of empowering gay men ultimately destroys his relationship with Scott, whom Harvey has been neglecting on his crusade.

Penn disappears into the role, a triumph of Method acting. What's remarkable, though, as Harvey find his voice, and pursues his objectives with steel-like determination, is how similar the role is to the others that have brought Penn acclaim. Penn is known for playing tough guys, men's men who bury their emotions in bravura in a form of masculine self-defense that must be overcome to redeem them (in the case of the killer in Dead Man Walking) or that leads to their destruction (in the case of the father in Mystic River).

By contrast, Harvey Milk wears his heart on his sleeve; he's all heart, and yet just as tough as Penn's earlier characters. There is a forcefulness to his love, perhaps best displayed at a meeting/party planning a response to Proposition 6, a ballot initiative to fire all gay and lesbian teachers in the state of California. Harvey tells the activists gathered in San Francisco that the only way to stop the initiative is for everyone to come out. He then asks them who in the room has not come out to their families. Several of them haven't. He challenges one of his closest supporters to call his parents on the spot and tell them that he's gay. On the one hand, it's going too far, almost forcing people to do something they're not ready for; politically, though, he was exactly right.

What resonates in the film, and even today, is Milk's total commitment to saving everyone. As he has his early successes, he gets a phone call from a young man whose parents want to send him to a heterosexual re-education camp. He tells the young man to leave, get on a bus, go to the nearest city. He has to get out of there to save himself. Again, the advice is extreme, but the point is as clear as it is harrowing: if your life requires you to compromise the essence of who you are, then by living that way you are helping to kill your own soul. We can't so much save each other as encourage each other to save ourselves.

The film is not perfect, but it is very, very good. There are some excessive moments -- the sequence where Milk is shot, in which he stares in slo-mo at the opera house across from City Hall -- is a bit odd. The bits with Dan White, Harvey's train-wreck colleague and murderer, are wonderfully understated -- the prelude to the murder is a short time-lapse sequence of White in his living room, staying up all night - finally, he's in his briefs, peering through the curtains.

What's incredibly impressive about the film is that it places the experiences of gay men in their historical context, and tells a story that's unfamiliar to most of us. The timing was incredibly fortuitous as well, with its narrative of the struggle against Prop 6 coming out in theatres just as Prop 8 had been passed by California voters. This is perhaps the first non-documentary American film to treat gay men like people in history. The fact that it couldn't be made for some 30 years after the events it covers is an indictment of our culture. But it's a story that all gay men, and all Americans, should know. It's easy to participate in your own oppression when you're ignorant of your own history. That's why slaves were not allowed to learn to read. Gay men have no such excuse for their own cultural illiteracy, but here's hoping more films in this vein will help tell our stories.

Who's Laughing Now?

Tomorrow's Results Tonight

Let's keep the predictions short and sweet:

ELECTORAL VOTE: Obama 419, McCain 119

POPULAR VOTE: Obama 54%, McCain 42%, Barr 2%, Nader 1%, McKinney 0% (rounding to the nearest percentage point)

KERRY/GORE STATES: Obama wins them all

TOSS-UP STATES: Obama wins Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, and Virginia

SURPRISE STATES: Obama wins Arizona, Louisiana, and at least one electoral vote from Nebraska

STATES WHERE I'M HEDGING MY BET: Alaska, Arkansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia -- I don't think Obama will win these, but if it's as big as it could be, these states will be closer than expected, even if they don't tip.

SENATE SEATS: Dems net +11 seats (including wins for Martin in Georgia and Musgrove in Mississippi)

CLOSEST SENATE RESULT: McConnell/Lunsford in Kentucky

BIGGEST SENATE SURPRISES: Graham/Conley in South Carolina, Johanns/Kleeb in Nebraska, and Cornyn/Noriega in Texas (These will be much closer than expected, and the Dems may pick up one of these seats.)

HOUSE SEATS: Dems net +42 seats (including seats in Alaska, Idaho, and Wyoming)

BIGGEST HOUSE SURPRISES: Dems take total control of all House seats in New England and Minnesota, and all but 2 in New York; their margin in the Southwest (AZ, NV, NM, and CO) goes from 10 of 21 seats to 16 of 21 seats

GOVERNORSHIPS: Dems hold North Carolina and Washington and pick up seats in Indiana and Missouri, for a total of 30 governorships

FUN GUBERNATORIAL FACT: Indiana would thus have its first female governor in Jill Long Thompson, and North Carolina its first female governor in Bev Perdue. If both women win, then in January there will be nine U.S. states with female governors, the highest number at any one time in U.S. history.

HOW LATE WILL I GO TO BED?: I might not. But then I have Wednesday and Thursday off. (Wednesday night I'm going to the "Celebrate Obama" event at the Texas Embassy, so that could be a late one . . . )

Another November 4

On November 4, 1980, the American people elected Ronald Wilson Reagan of California as our 40th president in a landslide. He won the popular vote by 10 points, trouncing President Carter 489-49 in the Electoral College. On President-Elect Reagan's coattails, Republicans netted a gain of 12 seats in the Senate, putting them in control of that house of Congress for the first time in decades.

Interestingly, Carter had held a narrow lead in the polls until right up before Election Day, as there was a sense (among the media, at least) that voters would not trust Reagan to run the country. He was too far to the right, a "right-wing nutcase," even. And then, on November 4, 1980, he won in a landslide that redefined America as a center-right nation for a generation.

And now, this Tuesday, some 28 years later, a generation later, another November 4 sees another monumental election in our nation's history. And I predict, just as on that past November 4, the polls have failed to reflect the true momentum of what has come to pass.

The fact is, we are no longer a center-right nation. Party ID has shifted massively from a slight advantage for Republicans to a much more sizable advantage for Democrats, and also an increased edge for independents. Are we a center-left nation? That remains to be seen. But the nation, as a whole, is a much bigger tent than it used to be.

And people are hurting, and much more open to the possibilities. And that's because the last eight years have seen a massive failure of all the institutions on which we thought we could rely. Banks have failed. People have lost much of their savings, their retirement funds. They've lost their homes. Three thousand people were murdered on September 11, 2001, and we have failed to apprehend the culprits, let alone bring them to justice.

Instead, our government lied its way into an unrelated war, all while relegating extraconstitutional powers to the vice-president, withdrawing from the Geneva Conventions, and authorizing torture and other profound violations of our most fundamental principles. Here, I am speaking not only of the Constitution, but of our sense that we, as Americans, must hold ourselves to a higher standard, because we are the standard to which the world aspires. To paraphrase President Reagan, and the Americans who came before, we are that city on a hill.

And yet, in the aftermath of the bloodiest day on the American mainland since the Civil War, our leaders failed us. There was no true call to national unity, no sense of a need for moral courage, of a calling higher than our own individual interests. Instead, the president told us to go shopping. All the while, the Congress ratcheted up spending, not only on defense, but increasing entitlements to a level surpassing that of Lyndon Johnson.

In retrospect, then, it's no surprise that Americans drowned on their rooftops and starved on the streets of one of our great cities for nearly a week before the government could figure out where they were and how to save them. And now, with the financial industry on the brink, and unwilling to spend its own capital to save itself, the government writes a blank check, nationalizing banks nearly destroyed by their own greed.

And the debt. The unthinkable debt. Since the fiscal year ended September 30th, we have already added an additional $500 billion to the national debt. This is as much as was added in the entire last fiscal year. Now it's well above $10 trillion and counting.

That number is so large, it's nearly unfathomable. What people see is their own bottom line. They're not making much more than they used to, but they can't buy as much. And we're talking basics, like gas, like milk. And employers are cutting back on health care.

In short, the nation is ready for a change. And actually, I don't think it was at all a sure thing for a Democrat to win this year, or to win big. A Republican that could have run strong on economic issues, connecting to the concerns of middle class and working class voters, could have had a chance. We could have had a debate on economic policy, instead of hearing the same BS talking points again and again and again.

But even that's not the fundamental problem with McCain's campaign, and the major asset of Obama's. Obama spoke in the language of American exceptionalism. McCain never did. To be fair, that's not the type of guy McCain is; he's something of a fatalist, if a romanticized one. He may have ridden to office on Reagan's coattails, but McCain was never an American exceptionalist. Obama is one, in his truest heart; really, he has to be, when you think about where he's come from.

What do I mean? Take this final viral video as an example:

Every so often, there are times when America must rise to meet a moment. And our moment is now. This is our moment. This is our time to unite in common purpose, to make this century the next American century. Let's go change the world.

Yes, obviously, it's a campaign speech. But there you have the essence of American exceptionalism that has been so lacking the last eight years: yes, the stakes are higher than they've been in decades. But together, we can meet the challenges we face, and the challenges to come. Together, united once again in our common purpose, this still-young century could be as great as the one that's past.

And, in short, I think that's why Obama will not just win, but win with a margin that's comparable to Reagan's. Sure, get-out-the-vote is a big factor, enthusiasm among the young and among African Americans is a factor. But the young and the black do not deliver a margin of 10 points or more.

If, tomorrow night and Wednesday morning, things end up blowing up as big as I think they will, you will hear a lot more about President Reagan, measuring his victory -- and his temperament, and his sense of America's greatness and great promise -- against that of America's 44th president-elect, Barack Hussein Obama of Illinois.

All Souls

So I am going to post my 2008 election predictions later tomorrow/today (Sunday, the Lord's day).

This may not happen till after I screen the new Bond film at one of my favorite cinemas, the Vue Islington, which I am rather looking forward to. Unfortunately, some of our group didn't buy their tickets in advance, and the screening had sold out Saturday afternoon. It's on four screens, but oh well . . .

So there's something to look forward to. I plan to predict electoral votes, as well as Senate, House, and gubernatorial races. I am totally spoiled now that I have my cable FINALLY working, thankfully in time for Election Night in America.

Further Insights on the Governor of the Welfare State

Three more thoughts on Sarah Palin:

1) Is she dyslexic? I mean this in the nicest way possible. I started thinking about this after her malapropism from the debate with Biden:

I'm not one to attribute the actions of man to climate change.

Well, I thought it was a malapropism, but then she said the same thing, in exactly the same words, in a TV interview a week or so later. Maybe she just hadn't memorized her talking points very well. I wonder, though, whether she might have at least a mild learning disability? I suggest this as it might be a reason she bounced between colleges (as at the time she attended college, there would have been little support for dyslexic students).

2) Do her children go to school? My mom brought this up before Andrew Sullivan did (after all, she is a teacher). It's problematic enough to have a governor who is anti-intellectual, anti-science, even anti-reading (and how I wish that was an unfair slur), but to hold her up as some sort of "hockey mom" while her children appear to be ever-present at campaign events (and not only at weekends) raises the question. Although point no. 1 above might explain why she's not a reader, and wouldn't place such a value on education (even in her own family . . .)

3) How can she possibly have a shot in 2012? I don't mean just because of her completely disastrous rollout on the national stage. Leave that aside, and consider: she is the governor of the Welfare State. No wonder she said "The government doesn't have to worry about money," because, in Alaska, they don't. They don't tax their citizens; they tax corporations, and then cut their citizens an annual check, to the tune of several thousand dollars a year for every man, woman, and child in the state.

Earlier this year, Palin imposed a windfall profit tax on the oil companies, and gave all her state's residents a second check, in addition to the one check they were already going to get this year.

Here's my point: without McCain as the focus, and with four years till her next shot at national office, surely there'll be more attention on this. And should the civil war for the future of the Republican party that I expect actually ensue, won't her fiscal record make her anathema to her party's base?

I repeat: she imposed a new windfall profit tax to give every person in her state an extra check this year. If Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid wanted to impose a windfall profit tax, the GOP would call it socialism. But, hey, she's a MILF, she's not hot on book-learnin', and she didn't have an abortion, so it's fiscal-schmiscal.

In Which I Say Something Nice About Sarah Palin

. . . for a change. (And that's change you can believe in!)

I am watching a program called View from the Right on CNN International, with David Brody, Stephen Hayes, David Madden, and a couple other conservative pundits. One of them just referred to the fact that Gov. Palin "can see Russia" as a reason not to present her as a foreign policy expert.

Amazing, isn't it, that Republican pundits have assimilated Tina Fey to the point that they attribute her joke to Gov. Palin? Because Gov. Palin never said "I can see Russia from my house." That was Tina Fey on SNL.

Of course, Gov. Palin did say a lot of silly stuff, but nothing quite that deliberately stupid. After all, Wasilla is on the mainland, in the Mat-Su Valley, and not on the island that shares a maritime border with Russia.

Just interesting, isn't it, how such a claim not made by the candidate can come to so thoroughly permeate the national discourse . . . Not unlike the claim that Al Gore said he invented the internet (which, likewise, he never actually claimed to have done) . . .

Memo to GOP: White Devils Trump Your Race Cards

So I called my parents last night before bed -- about an hour after the evening news in the U.S.

"Did you hear about Jeremiah Wright?" I said.

"Did you hear about the plot against Obama?" my mom said. "The Klan is out to get him. There's something about the numbers 88 and 44 . . ."

And so it goes. This is not unexpected, as Alma Powell could have told you. Not even the first time. It always amazes me that white people don't realize how racism works. Or that they forget. But then I've studied on it, and sometimes I forget how much they forget. So we're all crackers like that, I suppose.

But, man -- how much does it suck for the Republicans to tear up the last lighting fixtures and doorknobs, throw those suckers at Obama, and then be upstaged by actual white devils mere hours later?

And all of it upstaged, of course, by that Last Frontier devil, Ted Stevens. With whom McCain has been known to pal around . . .

Memo to GOP: white devils trump your race cards. And there are actual white devils in America, and an actual KKK. These are not figments of Rev. Wright's imagination.

And a shout-out to white devils across the land: thanks for being the batshit crazy crackers you are. Sometimes white folk need a reality check. And you provided that in spades.

Now we just need the inevitable press release from the Klan, disavowing these crackers and their tactics. 'Cause the Klan claims Obama is driving up membership. Why, it's almost as if they have visions of a U. S. of KKK-A.!

Having Thrown the Kitchen Sink, the GOP Scrounges for Lighting Fixtures and Doorknobs

Eight days till Election Day . . . nothing is working . . . so time to play the race card. Again. Today. But, wait a sec, y'all, this is the ULTIMATE race card. (Seriously, though, how many race cards can the GOP have in their deck? Surely there are some hearts or diamonds in there somewhere?)

Check it:



Here's my question: Whose mind is this going to change?

If you already knew about Rev. Wright, this is old news.

If you didn't know about Rev. Wright, and you already decided to vote for Obama, are you going to change your mind for this reason? Hard to see -- especially if you made that choice in spite of being someone who openly says "nigger" to strangers.

If you didn't know about Rev. Wright, and you hadn't made up your mind, perhaps you would be affected. Point taken. But now you've set up Sen. Obama to explain to all those ignorant folk how Rev. Wright does not speak to him, and tell them all about his own Christian faith. As he is, ya know, an African American Christian, and not an Arab Muslim. (And thanks to the GOP for giving Obama this assist late in the game.)

Bigger problem: If you've already lost a good portion of crackers who'll be "voting for the nigger," you might want to check that deck again.

Toss-Up States

Here's my list of toss-up states for Election '08:

- In the Midwest: Ohio (20 E.V.), Indiana (11 E.V.), Missouri (11 E.V.), Nebraska CD-2 (1 E.V.)
- In the South: North Carolina (15 E.V.), Florida (27 E.V.)
- In the Southwest: Nevada (5 E.V.)

These states (and one Congressional district) have a total of 90 electoral votes. Also, N.B. that these states (and CD) all voted for President Bush in 2000 and 2004.

To get to 270, McCain has to win ALL of these states (and CD), plus at least 18 electoral votes from the McCain longshot category.

Here's the kicker, folks: Obama does not need to win any of these states.

Here's why: Add up the electoral votes from the Obama's floor states and the McCain longshot states (from below). Obama's floor (234 E.V.) plus McCain longshots (52 E.V.) give him 286 electoral votes, and make him the 44th president of the United States.

So Obama can win without Ohio or Florida (or even Nevada).

Now, if someone McCain did pull out a win in Pennsylvania, Obama could still win by picking up a state from this list -- even Nevada, with its 5 E.V., would put him back to 270.

Basically, then, McCain can only win if it's super-close, and even then, he has a very specific path to victory.

McCain's Longshots

In my electoral map, here are the states that I consider longshots for McCain to pickup. Based on extensive close reading of poll results and news reports from these states over the last six months, I seriously doubt any of them will turn red next Tuesday.

Still, I've listed them here in the sake of fairness. (Also, to highlight the desperation of McCain's strategy, which I'll explain shortly.) Here are the states:

- In the Northeast: Pennsylvania (21 E.V.) and New Hampshire (4 E.V.)
- In the South: Virginia (13 E.V.)
- In the Southwest: Colorado (9 E.V.) and New Mexico (5 E.V.)

N.B. that to get to 270, McCain will need at least 18 electoral votes from this list. That assumes that he has already won ALL the McCain's floor states and Obama longshot states as listed below, and ALL the toss-up states listed above.

So McCain can't win the election unless he wins one of the following:
- Pennsylvania (for a total of 273 E.V.)
- Virginia and Colorado (for a total of 274 E.V.)
- Virginia and New Mexico (for a total of 270 E.V.)
- Colorado, New Mexico, and New Hampshire (for a total of 270 E.V.)

If you look at Obama's leads in Virginia and Colorado, you can see why Team McCain might double-down everything on Pennsylvania, and a Cracker Country strategy there. It's the only state on this list with a large enough Cracker Country populace that it might just work.

Obama's Floor

Looking at it from the other side, here are the states that I consider to be Obama's floor -- states that McCain has no chance of winning:

- In the Northeast: Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia
- In the Midwest: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan
- In the West: California, Oregon, Washington

These states, with 234 votes, are Obama's floor. Barring a major disaster and screw-up by Obama, these are states (plus DC) McCain will not win.

Technically, Pennsylvania should be on this list, but I am leaving it out, as McCain's entire strategy for winning is based on winning Pennsylvania. I think this is all but impossible at this point, but will indulge the senior senator, if for no other reason than the sake of suspense.

Obama Longshots

In my electoral map, here are the states that I consider longshots for Obama to pickup. But you could well see them turning blue next Tuesday, ordered here from least to most likely (within each category, and among categories overall):

- Cracker Country surprises: South Dakota, Alaska, and Nebraska CD-1 (7 E.V.)
- Cracker Country outliers: West Virginia, Arkansas, North Dakota, Montana (17 E.V.)
- Dixie surprises: Louisiana, South Carolina, Mississippi (23 E.V.)
- Southwest outliers: Arizona (10 E.V.)
- Dixie outliers: Georgia (15 E.V.)

These 11 states (and 2 Congressional districts) have a total of 72 electoral votes. Give them all to McCain, along with his "floor" states, and he has a total of 162 electoral votes.

McCain's Floor

Just to be clear, the 10 states I think Obama has no chance of winning, in any scenario:

- In the South: Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama
- In the Great Plains: Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Nebraska (at-large and the 3rd CD)
- In the Mountain West: Idaho, Wyoming, Utah

These states, with their 90 electoral votes, are McCain's floor. They are also the heart of Cracker Country.

Just to be clear.

And, yes, I am aware which states I'm leaving off the list . . .

How the Southwest Was Won

. . . by Obama, that is.

To wit: check out this new poll from Arizona, which shows McCain's margin down to a mere 4 points.

Apparently there are some more polls coming that also show Obama closing the gap in McRage's home state. I don't think this is the tightening the McCain camp had in mind.

My friends doubted me a few weeks back when I said Arizona was perhaps a longshot for Obama, but I wouldn't include it on the list of states (such as Utah, Idaho, and Oklahoma) that he surely wouldn't win. My reasons? Demographically, the same factors that work to Obama's advantage in Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada are at work in Arizona. Also, we hadn't had any polling in Arizona for nearly two months (since early September), and McCain didn't have a whopping lead then.

Now, if we could just get some fresh numbers in Alaska, please . . .

Sarah Palin, Christian Nationalist?

That's her most viable move, according to Newsweek, all to make a play for "low-education white voters":

But what the intellectuals have not always acknowledged is that there is an easier, if less utopian, way to speak to the anxieties of working America: full-fledged culture war. There are, in fact, wedge issues the Republican Party has yet to fully exploit. Rather than expose the divide between McCain and the base of his party on immigration (the nominee takes a moderate stance; party activists are filled with close-the-border zeal), the Republicans have taken the issue off the table in 2008. But any politician who thinks millions of middle- and working-class white Americans have stopped caring about it is delusional. It is only a matter of time before a candidate with A-list name recognition decides to make it a pet issue.

Why not Palin? Unlike most top-tier Republican candidates, she owes very little to the party's business wing and thus would have little to lose by taking an anti-immigration stand. Since joining McCain's ticket, she has echoed his moderate position on the issue. But she could turn this into a virtue: yet another McCain mistake she had to grin and bear. She could use the issue as a jumping-off point to break the party from business altogether on things like trade, making a protectionist argument from the right. The inexperience that has dogged her this year could help her in the future; without a record of party fealty, she could easily dispose of any party orthodoxy that kept her from marrying pitchfork populism with the ideals of the Christian right.

No telegenic Republican has tried this since Pat Buchanan in the 1990s. No superstar Republican has tried it in history. In Palin's hands, this strategy could spawn a movement. In the event of a Republican embarrassment on Election Day, the real story won't be John McCain licking the wounds from his lonely defeat. It may be Sarah Palin reinventing the Republican Party—not from the middle, but from the right.

So (Pat Buchanan)^2 + James Dobson - Big Business = New Republican Party?

And I didn't realize we'd only been having a half-assed culture war. Pansies!

The important thing is she's telegenic. And she has no "record of party fealty," certainly not in this election.