peacocks and lilies

I’m not really that good at memorializing recent history, so I took the day off yesterday. Plenty of others had plenty of good and reverent stuff to say about 9/11/2001. I spent the morning watching the ceremonies on CNN and FOX and reliving the echo of our national grief. I was shocked, though I suppose I should be used to to by now, that MSNBC replayed the entire morning in real time. I think they’ve done that before. I think it’s pretty tasteless. For what purpose, except sensationalism, should we re-watch those poor people crumbling and jumping to their deaths?

Anyway, I’m about outraged out. Of course, I haven’t turned the TV on yet, or listened to radio’s boarhounds yet. But I have found some pretty good stuff around the Internet.

We’ll start with Joseph over at Cannonfire. He’s documenting the atrocities coming from Democrats this year. Remember way back when documenting atrocities was Atrios’ job? Look where he is now:

But back to Cannonfire. You really want to read that post. Here’s a teaser:

In decades to come, objective observers will look at today’s pseudo-”progressive” movement with unmitigated disgust.

Since silence equals complicity, I hold ALL Obots responsible for these smear campaigns. I have never seen a major post or editorial by a left-wing writer excoriating these lies. Instead, the Obots dare to accuse McCain of engaging in “swiftboat tactics,” even though the Obots themselves have manned the swiftboats since December.

You aren’t going to want to miss all the debunking going on over there, including the debunking of this shocking smear tactic right here, from Obama’s campaign itself (see Keith’s update in comments).

Next up is Bud White, from Bud White’s World, in which Bud snarks on the 50-State strategy, which has become another casualty in this election-war. Then he analyzes why they had to kill it, and why they should have known it was just ear-candy for Progressive Dudes. A sliver to whet your appetite:

A narrative was developed in the blogosphere that Obama, unlike Hillary, would be able to touch the hearts of red state conservatives and turn them into Democrats. Hillary was too polarizing, it was argued, and she would be fighting for Kerry’s states plus 1.

It was mandatory at dailykos to believe that Obama was a map-changer. A diarist from North Dakota named Ab2kgj, in a post which would be funny if it weren’t so painful, suggested that Obama had a real shot at grabbing that state:

Yep, basically what I’ve been thinking about for a while now.

Clyde over at Clyde’s Place articulates perfectly the problem with Gloria Steinem’s LA Times hit piece. To wit:

Steinem compounds her problems by making the same mistake so many other so called defenders of women’s rights have made over the past few days. She discards all logic and states that because she (Palin) agrees with McCain, that somehow makes her unworthy of being a vice-presidential pick. In other words, if you aren’t Democrat, or if your views might stray a bit from what the Steinem viewpoint is, then instead of vying to become vice president you should be home baking an apple pie, putting on a negligee and taking care of your man.

That pretty much nails it for me. The Democratic Party is so sexist, even its so-called leading feminists will join the pile on, trying to keep conservative women tied to their children and their kitchen. Well, we did ask for more transparency in government, but I don’t this is exactly what we meant. Now we know. Democrats suck for women, and apparently the party turns them into some sort of twisted Stockholm Victim-mentality mannequins. No thanks, Gloria. Here’s what we think of you, you waste of a perfectly good symbol:

Don’t miss LadyBoomerNYC’s offering, a fantastic take on life post-anti-Convention. Here’s a slice of her wonderful and moving narrative:

I hesitated protectively, having lived undercover using my handle for so long that I had to consciously produce my real name in my head before saying it. “Actually, I’ve been doing a lot of writing most of the year, political writing. Do you know what blogs are? I have a blog and contribute to other sites and efforts.”

They continued the conversation as they scurried about their business, “Oh really, and who were you supporting for President?”

My personal self gulped inside my political self having been so underground and divided, “Actually, I was supporting Hillary Clinton, working to get her elected. I still support her and believe she would make the best President.”

They both jumped to attention and gravitated back to the counter to face me, “Really? We’re for her too!”

(See why I can’t stop?) “That’s great,” I cooed, as I came clean, telling them about my blog and links to others, our efforts prior to and during Denver, and our work to ensure a roll call, a floor vote, and a record of the truth about this election.

They pointed out to me, “It’s just like 2000, Gore and Bush!”

But go read the whole thing. It’s the kind of analysis-couched-in-personal-stories that has been driving the Creative Nonfiction genre for several years now. Wonderful stuff. LadyB, you so deserve to be published and paid for what you do.

Finally, for all you McKinney-supporting PUMAs out there, Tennessee Guerrilla Woman has a post up on McKinney speaking about election integrity. You remember elections integrity, don’t you? Lack of it is what we used to blame Republicans for in 2000, before the Dem guy did it too in 2008, and not even to the other side, but to one of his own.

UPDATE: Because this little gem from SugarNSpice must not be overlooked. This post comments on the meaning of and reaction to Palin’s use of the term “Community Organizer,” then takes a really close look at Obama’s accomplishements as a community organizer. Read it, know it, re-tell it. That’s how narratvie-building works.

UPDATE the II: Because this is the most satisfying jumble of words I’ve read in months:

The Democrats are in a panic. In a presidential race that is impossible to lose, they are 

behind. Obama devotees are frantically giving advice. Tom Friedman tells him to “start  slamming down some phones.” Camille Paglia suggests, “be boring!”

Meanwhile, a posse of Democratic lawyers, mainstream reporters, lefty bloggers, and various other Obamaphiles are scouring the vast tundra of Alaska for something, anything, to bring down Sarah Palin: her daughter’s pregnancy, her ex-brother-in-law problem, her $60 per diem, and now her religion. (CNN reports — news flash! — that she apparently has never spoken in tongues.) Not since Henry II asked if no one would rid him of his turbulent priest, have so many so urgently volunteered for duty.

But Palin is not just a problem for Obama. She is also a symptom of what ails him. Before Palin, Obama was the ultimate celebrity candidate. For no presidential nominee in living memory had the gap between adulation and achievement been so great. Which is why McCain’s Paris Hilton ads struck such a nerve. Obama’s meteoric rise was based not on issues — there was not a dime’s worth of difference between him and Hillary on issues — but on narrative, on eloquence, on charisma.

The unease at the Denver convention, the feeling of buyer’s remorse, was the Democrats’ realization that the arc of Obama’s celebrity had peaked — and had now entered a period of its steepest decline. That Palin could so instantly steal the celebrity spotlight is a reflection of that decline.

It was inevitable. Obama had managed to stay aloft for four full years. But no one can levitate forever.