Issue/Publication: Footprints

Web Links

I was recently called upon to serve on a jury at the nation's largest courthouse, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. I resisted at first, but, after listening to Sarah Palin and Charlie Gibson speak today on NBC, I am grateful for the experience.

In the trial, a sexual harassment case, the plaintiff (a single mother with two children) was clear in her responses to questions put to her by both plaintiff and defense lawyers. "Yes" and "no" predominated the questioning process when she was placed on the witness stand.

In contrast, the defendant, a 45-year-old male who was the CEO of a badly limping E-Z mortgage company, answered questions with a blizzard of words. It seems that he wished to obfuscate the realities of (1) his ignorance of the workings of his company; (2) the significant role this single mom played in the workings of ShadyMortgageCanogaPark, CA, and (3) the aggressive nature of the advances he had -- or had not -made toward the plaintiff, this woman.

Rough though it may be, Sarah Palin is on trial. She should be. She has no experience in a world that extends beyond five -yes, count 'em five - junior colleges in Idaho and Wyoming, a claim to be an aggressive soccer mom, an enthusiastic Christian, a mayorship in Wasilla, Alaska, and a meteoric rise to the governorship of a state that customarily refers to the rest of the United States as "back in the world."

People want to know: Is Sarah Palin capable to lead the nation, just as people wanted to know if the defendant in my jury trial experience was capable of running his business without abusing his power.

Today, I watched Sarah Palin playing the role of a person who does not know (1) how the company she wants to take over  -- McCain is very ill and may die before he completes his first term -- has been doing business, not today, not yesterday, not when the Bush Doctrine was introduced (in September, 2002) and not when we are forced to account for the aggression we have pushed upon foreign nations. (2) She does not understand the significance of the role she is about to assume in terms -- not of her own cocky pathology -- but in terms of the greater good of the nation; and (3) she does not understand the consequences of her looking into the camera and saying “yes, Charlie, I am ready,” when she clearly is not ready.

As with the mortgage-hustling, womanizing defendant in the jury trial, Palin's language was vague and not artful. She is NOT a good hustler, and she won't cut it. Let her drown Charlie Gibson in -- his language -- "a blizzard of words." It won't wash, not even as a harassment tool.

She doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is (primary tenet: pre-emptive strikes); she does not understand the balance of power in the former Soviet Union or its manifestation re: Georgia v. Russia; she did not know that she had contradicted her boss's position on yesterday's preemptive invasion of Pakistan.

According to her responses, Palin’s foreign policy strategy is based on not blinking: good for bar fights and eye-to-eye encounters with mooses (meese?) but not necessarily effective with foreign powers.

As an international expert, she has traveled to Canada and Mexico and went once to Kuwait, a trip that she said "changed my life," although she could not elaborate on what those changes were.

It would be very difficult, even given the dreaded flatspots of this nation’s ability to think critically, to believe that Sarah Palin is going to hold sway for long.

As an epilogue: In the sexual harassment trial that I served on, the jury -- men, women, of all classe -- found the defendant guilty. After the verdict was delivered we were also notified that the plaintiff  (the single mom) had taped a final conversation with her harassing boss -- before he fired her -- in which he admitted to sexually harassing her and that her objection to his advances was his primary motivation for firing her. The tape was thrown out as evidence because the defendant did not know that he was incriminating himself, but he was found guilty nonetheless.

Tonight, Sarah Palin also incriminated herself as a perpetrator of harassment -- of the American people. It can't be thrown out of court -- as the rest of Gibson's interviews cannot be thrown out of the public eye -- because she willingly entered into this harassment scheme -- without "blinking."

She’s “ready.”

Will she be “ready” for  the debates with Senator Biden? Will she be “ready” to shore up McCain’s flagging  energy? As with the diverse jury members of that sexual harassment trial in Los Angeles, don’t sell the American people too short  on knowing what is bullshit and what is not.

I moved on, after the jury trial, to resume life. Now, we must move on, past Sarah Palin. There are bigger fish to fry without contemplating the meaning of lipstick, the balls it takes to shoot moose or wolves or to drill for oil in national wildlife preserves. This woman is “ready” to abandon her post as Governor of Alaska for the chance of a lifetime. Should we allow her own particular form of harassment -- thrown upon her in the temper tantrum of a dying man -- to intercede in this critical election?

As a Sarah Palin antidote, I offer this brief commentary by NYTimes columnist Gail Collins: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/opinion/11collins.html?em.

Peace,

Charlie Degelman

Visit the website at http://www.charlesdegelman.org/thelection.html .