FROM AWE TO SHOCK

What a crazy couple of days it has been for us political junkies. First, on Thursday night, the Democrats conclude their perfect-pitch convention with a speech by Barack Obama that, at least to me, was brilliant. I sat in awe at the number of beautiful rhetorical flourishes in that speech and, just as importantly, I was reassured by Barack’s courage in calling out John McCain directly and powerfully, and yet never below the belt. When Barack entered the race, I was concerned that he was too much of a gentlemen and a pedant. Thursday night, though, he was as much Marvin Hagler as he was Adlai Stevenson. THAT was the Barack that I have been waiting for. If we continue to see the same persona during the debates, and if the Clintons continue to actively campaign for the ticket, the Democrats should win in November regardless of what McCain does from this point on.

So that’s what I was thinking on Thursday night. And then … came yesterday’s announcement. I’ll freely admit that John McCain shocked me with his choice for VP. Like most people, I had barely heard of Sarah Palin, and I certainly knew a whole lot less about her than I did about Michael Palin, the dude from Monty Python.

My first reaction was that the choice of Sarah was just a “head fake” – a decoy – because surely, nobody would be so crazy as to select her for VP when there were so many other more qualified women available. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, for example. Or Condi Rice? But Sarah Palin?

I can certainly identify some positives about this choice in terms of what it says about McCain. Once again, McCain has proven himself to be gutsy. It’s a characteristic you don’t see that much in D.C., and you almost never see it on the Democratic side of the house. McCain reminded me of that fact when he made this selection. I can see him making some bold moves if he were elected President, and given his ability to reach across the aisle over the years (notably, both Biden and Hillary call him a “friend”), I can see some of those moves resulting in bipartisan bills that would truly represent progress.

I can’t deny that there used to be a whole lot that I liked about this man. And I have trouble believing that “President” McCain would be the polar opposite of “Senator” McCain, who hasn’t been all that bad. In this case, McCain saw that his opponent was having a storybook convention, resolved that he wasn’t going to lose this without a fight, and decided to take a big chance. In theory, I can respect that attitude. It’s certainly a more refreshing way of dealing with life than cluelessly smiling your way to a resounding defeat without any apparent consideration of risk-taking – the path of Mondale and Dukakis, just to name two of my previous selections for President.

So let’s praise McCain for his willingness to take risks. But … and it’s a HUGE but … wasn’t this particular act of risk-taking just a tad meshugah? And more than a tad offensive.

What am I talking about? Let’s consider who this Sarah Palin is. Obviously, we’re all going to have to learn about her pretty much from scratch – and by “we” I’m referring to McCain as well. It’s been reported that he only met her once before he offered her the position last week.

Give Sarah credit for being a genuinely nice person – how else do you serve two terms as a small-town mayor – and a charming one. Credit her also for being a self-made woman. You have to respect her pluck every bit as much as her luck.

Frankly, there really is no reason to think ill of this woman. All she did in accepting the position of McCain’s running mate was answer the call of duty.

That doesn’t mean, however, that she is even a remotely sensible choice for the Vice Presidency, let alone the Presidency. Just consider the following facts, and you’ll realize that if she were any further in right-field, she’d be touching the foul pole:

1. She is anti-choice even in cases of rape and incest. Only when the mother’s life is in jeopardy would she permit abortions.
2. In 2000, when McCain was running as a maverick, Bush as a “compassionate conservative,” and Buchanan as the choice of the hard right, Palin was supporting Buchanan.
3. She doesn’t believe human beings are the cause of global warming.
4. She sued the Bush Administration for placing polar bears on the list of endangered species; apparently, this interfered with the “drill, drill, drill” mantra.
5. She claims credit for killing the “Bridge to Nowhere” when she became Governor, but she supported the project a year earlier … back before it became a national joke.
6. She supported a state Constitutional Amendment to bar health benefits for same-sex partners.
7. She opposed stem-cell research.
8. She supports tax cuts for the rich.
(Note that she may have received a bum rap as a supporter of teaching about creationism. That rumor is going around, but as far as I can tell, she never favored including creation science in the school curriculum, but only supported allowing debate on the subject. That hardly seems wacko-right-wing to me.)

Even without the creation science item, it’s still quite a list. The McCain of 2000 would have thought the woman was truly fringe – more like the choice of Dick Cheney than Maverick McCain. But that list, as off-putting as it is to a liberal like me, isn’t what makes the choice so meshugah. Here’s the problem: up until this week, there were only four clear reasons why someone would support a past-his-prime John McCain over an attractive ground-breaking modern-day Demosthenes like Barack Obama: (1) McCain’s the guy if you have solidly conservative beliefs; (2) Barack beat Hillary and some people resent him so much for that that they would support Atilla the Hun against him; (3) Barack is black and … well … you know … that makes McCain more “American” if you get my drift; and/or (4) McCain is qualitatively more experienced than Barack, and in risky times like these, experience is very important in a leader.

The first of these reasons wasn’t undermined by the Palin selection. Palin is obviously even more conservative than McCain, so if you swing well to the right, it probably makes sense to support McCain/Palin. But what about the other 70% of us? Before this week, the second reason was also pretty relevant, as many moderate or liberal Hillary supporters clearly resented the hell out of the Democratic Party generally and Barack Obama in particular. But then came the Convention, and the Hillary’s strong support of Barack, so perhaps now, the second reason isn’t that important. As for the third reason – racism – that one isn’t going away either. But will it really account for enough votes to make the difference? Especially given that a high percentage of American racists are conservative enough to vote for McCain anyway regardless of race, I suspect that this reason combined with the first two would still not be enough to get McCain over the top.

Until yesterday, it was the fourth reason – concerns about Barack’s experience – that made the race so damned close. It was the most valid reason available to moderates for choosing McCain. And then … came Sarah.

Let’s leave aside that her selection has reminded us all of how old and frail McCain is. It’s not just that he is a 72 year old man. It’s that he’s had cancer several times, and – as he loves to tell us in virtually every sentence – he spent 5 ½ years in a POW camp. He’s not just 72, he’s an OLD 72, or at least not a young one.

Months ago, McCain was asked by a reporter if his age made it doubly imperative that he select a running mate who is qualified to take over the Presidency on day one. McCain agreed that it did.

And then … came Sarah.

Sarah Palin appears to have no experience whatsoever dealing with a range of issues, including the entire topic of foreign affairs. Lamely, one of the hosts of the Fox Morning News show had to prop up her foreign policy experience by saying that she’s from Alaska and Alaska is near Russia, so she must be in the know. Is that really the best they’ve got?

Rather than go on and on expressing my disbelief about how unqualified Sarah is, let’s just look at the facts. And let’s look, in particular, at the one issue that had previously favored McCain – the breadth of the resume. I think all of us who have long favored Barack have done so because of his judgment and brilliance and IN SPITE OF his relative dearth of experience. But compared to Sarah Palin, Barack comes across as a veritable Winston Churchill.

Here is a look at their resumes. (I’m leaving out all the mishigas that People Magazine and Vogue might want to talk about and concentrating simply on their vocational and educational exploits.)

Through 1985 –

Sarah graduates from Wasilla High (1982) and matriculates at the University of Idaho.

Barack, having received his undergraduate degree from Columbia University, goes on to work for the Business International Corporation and the New York Public Interest Research Group.

Through 1988 –

In 1987, five years after graduating from Wasilla, Sarah receives an undergraduate degree from the University of Idaho, her last academic degree. After college, she works briefly as a sports reporter in Anchorage Alaska.

Beginning in 1985, Barack serves as a community organizer in the South Side of Chicago for three years. Then he matriculates at the Harvard Law School.

Through 1991 –

Sarah, after getting married, works briefly with her husband as a commercial fisherwoman (she may also have continued to do some sports reporting in Anchorage).

Barack becomes the first African-American President in the history of the Harvard Law Review. He then graduates from Harvard Law School Magna Cum Laude, moves back to Chicago, and becomes a Professor of Law at the University of Chicago.

Through 1996 –

Sarah serves two terms as a city councilwoman in the Wasilla City Council (the population of Wasilla was under 6,000). She and her husband start a snowmobile/watercraft business and kept the business for three years.

Barack continues to be a Professor of Law at the University of Chicago. He organizes voter registration during Bill Clinton’s 1992 run for President. Barack also writes what has become a best-selling book, “Dreams from My Father.”

Through 2002 –

Beginning in 1997, Sarah serves as Mayor of Wasilla.

Beginning in 1997, Barack serves as a Senator in the Illinois State Senate (population of Illinois, 12,000,000). He gives his now-famous address opposing the idea of invading Iraq at a time when few were publicly speaking against such an invasion.

Through 2004 –

Sarah serves as Chair of the Alaskan Conservation Commission.

Barack continues to serve as a Senator in the Illinois State Senate. He campaigns for and wins the job of United States Senator. He also delivers the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention of 2004, which immediately catapults him to the status of the “Rising Star” of the Democratic Party.

Through 2006 –

Sarah campaigns for and wins the job of Governor of Alaska. She would become the first woman Governor and youngest Governor in Alaskan history.

Barack serves as a United States Senator. As a Senator, he is appointed to the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, the Veterans Affairs Committee, and the Committee on Health Education Labor and Pensions. Barack also writes another best selling book, “The Audacity of Hope.”

Through the present –

Sarah serves for 1 ½ years as the Governor of Alaska (population 680,000). In that capacity, she serves as the chair of the National Governors Association National Resources Committee and the Interstate Oil and Gas Commission. She achieves an extremely high popularity rating within her state.

While continuing to serve as United States Senator, Barack campaigns for and wins the Presidential nomination of the Democratic Party. In the process, he oversees a huge 50-state organization that revolutionizes political fundraising and various other aspects of the electoral process. He wins more primary/caucus votes than any American who has ever lived. (I’m treating the Michigan primary as a non-event given that Barack’s name was off the ballot.) After January 2008, he becomes the central focus of media attention in this country and the subject of relentless negative attacks – first by the campaign of Hillary Clinton and later by the campaign of John McCain. In the meantime, he delivers numerous speeches that are widely viewed as among the best examples of political oratory in modern American history.


I look at a list like that and it appears clear that one of these individuals is far and away more qualified for President than the other. But even if I’m totally wrong and if the truth is that, between these two people, the experience issue is the proverbial “wash,” it would still remain the case that John McCain has effectively neutralized the one clear advantage that he had among sensible moderates. Why would he do it? Did he really think Hillary supporters were so stupid that they would support ANY woman, even an unqualified one, over the man who had the “audacity” to challenge Hillary in the primaries? Or does McCain think that by energizing his base with the choice of a solid right winger, he won’t need the support of many Democrats?

I honestly can’t answer those questions. But this I can say: John McCain still has a shot at the Presidency. Even without much support from others, the coalition of conservatives and non-conservative racists will be a powerful one come November. Still, they alone aren’t likely to tip the scales for the GOP. And with the selection of an unknown, untested, unprepared and unmoderate choice like Sarah Palin, McCain has now, incredibly, put the oxymoron “Democratic Landslide” in play.

WOW!

Watching that speech tonight, I can only marvel at the difference between a professional who is merely competent and one who is truly inspired. As the GOP tries to figure out over the next few days precisely how to build a convention on mocking and otherwise disrespecting Barack Obama, consider this analogy: it would be a lot like a gang of crooks trying to figure out how to steal a masterpiece from a museum. The word "ugly" wouldn't seem strong enough to capture such a strategy. Slimy? Closer, but no. Unholy? OK. That works for me.

I can hope, I can pray, that the GOP Convention takes the high road as much as the Convention we've just witnessed. (Remember all the pundits whining that there wasn't enough "red meat"?) But something tells me that prayer won't be answered.

No matter. I don't think Karl Rove and his troglodyte tactics can bring down Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Al Gore, John Kerry ... and tens of millions of Americans who want honest to God change and are now willing to work together. Yeah, I acknowledge that there are a lot of well meaning, intelligent conservatives who prefer the GOP. And I know that there are a lot of other not-so-well-meaning racists who will never vote for Barack because of his skin. But that coalition just doesn't seem large enough to prevail. Barack is the future. Strike that, Barack is the present. And Americans, at the end of the day, usually rally around a winner.

No matter what happens in November, Barack Obama is a winner.

THIS WEEK, DON’T BE BLIND TO COLOR

Tonight, we witness history. A black man will, for the first time, accept a major political party’s nomination for President of the United States.

When we all initially learned about Barack, we thought he was wonderful. Republican, Democrat, Independent, it didn’t matter. Everyone was extremely impressed with him. But that was before he began his run for President. Now, we have witnessed talking heads, competing politicians, and political advertisers relentlessly take shots at him. Most recently, we have heard him mocked as, essentially, an uppity man-child who doesn’t know that his place is at the bottom, not the top of the ticket. Kind of like at the back of a bus, if you know what I mean.

Barack Obama was a community organizer for years. He’s been a professor of constitutional law at one of our nation’s top law schools. He was the first President of the Harvard Law Review, an organization that only accepts the very best and brightest. (Trust me – as someone who didn’t make the Law Review at Harvard, those kids were damned smart!)

Barack served for many years as a state legislator, and then for several more years in the United States Senate. He has delivered many incredible political speeches. One such speech was his party’s keynote address at their previous Convention; another was a speech he gave arguing against a then-popular war of choice, which has turned out to be an unmitigated disaster for our nation and our world.

Barack has put together a campaign staff that revolutionized American politics with its ability to organize the grass roots and take advantage of modern communications media. He has inspired young voters, black voters, and intellectual voters like no candidate in recent memory. And, in order to claim his Party’s nomination, he had to defeat one of the most formidable political machines in recent American history.

Barack Obama is now older than Teddy Roosevelt, Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy and Ulysses Grant were when they were elected President. He surely has earned his place at the top of his Party’s ticket.

During the next several weeks, the haters will tell you that Barack isn’t ready for prime time. They will tell you that his time is in the future, not the present. They will mock him as politics’ answer to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton – a celebrity who’s all style, no substance.

Well, you can judge the man’s substance for yourselves. But on one point, please don’t let the haters convince you. Don’t let them convince you that Barack’s race is no big deal. It’s a plenty big deal.

If there’s one inspiring thing we should take from the campaign of Hillary Clinton, it’s the idea that now, finally, women feel that they are ready to enter the White House as Presidents, not merely first ladies. It’s about time, wouldn’t you say? But other major industrialized western countries have had women leaders. What they haven’t had – what we haven’t had – is a black leader. And we sorely need one.

We need to make a statement to all the young black boys and girls in America that ours is a nation of equality. They’ve heard the words before -- “we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal” – but they also heard that those words were penned by a slave owner who thought that black folks were, genetically, intellectually inferior to whites … or Native Americans. They or their parents have been forced to attend separate schools, drink from separate fountains, and urinate in separate bathrooms. They’ve been informed that they are welcome as athletes or entertainers … but not as physicists or brain surgeons.

But that was before Barack.

With the nomination of Barack Obama, I feel that “my team” has just won the Conference Championship game and will get to play for the Super Bowl. I say “my team” not because I’m black, which I’m not, but because I have had a visceral concern for the rights of black people for as long as I remember. My parents took me to civil rights rallies, like Resurrection City, back in the 60s when I was still young and impressionable, and that convinced me that my country will never be truly great until it rights the wrongs of racism.

Now’s the time to do just that.

Let’s think back to when we all first learned about Barack – before the haters took over. Let’s think back to how impressed we were with his core. His intellect. His judgment. His bearing.

And now, let’s remember what every sports fan and every athlete will tell you about the Super Bowl: it’s not enough to get there. The point is to win the damn thing. And now, we must all join together and throw our energies – our heart and soul – into doing just that. We must will Barack Obama to the White House, where he belongs.

What is at stake is not merely the chance to move past the sorriest chapters in American history. What is at stake is the opportunity to inspire those Americans who have lost hope and faith simply because of their race. To illustrate this point, I’d like to attach a small scene from The Creed Room. I call it the Metaphor of the Inverted Track.

The speaker, Scott Shaw, is an educated, but angry, black man in his late 20s.

“You can’t talk about justice in the U.S. without starting with the subject of race. Conservatives want to white-wash that word. They say bigotry's gone. A new day has dawned. I say they're not color blind, they're just plain blind!

“You know what the problem is? White folks just don’t understand the sport of track. At least I assume they don't, because I never see a white boy compete in the 100 or 200 meters.

“Since most of you are white, let me help you out with this one. We’re watching as they set up for the 200. If you’ve never seen that race before, it might look kind of funny, because the guy in lane one is standing several feet behind the guy in lane two, who’s standing several feet behind the guy in lane three. You get the picture. They’re all running a short race to get to the same place halfway around the track. What gives? Why the staggered start?

“They stagger it because the guys in the outside lanes have to run around a wider circle. So if we’re going to make the race fair, we’ve gotta do something to make it harder for the folks on the inside. We've got to move them further back from the finish line when we start the race.

“But that’s track. It’s a black man’s sport. Arthur was talking before about a white man’s game – the glorious competition for money, power and status. In Arthur's game, nobody but a white man has ever been elected President or Vice President. That's because the white folks rigged the game. In the white man’s race, folks line up in a staggered position, only the guys on the inside are starting several feet closer to the finish line, not further back. It kind of makes it easy to win when you’re starting on the inside, doesn’t it? When you’re on the outside, you’ve got to run a ways just to get to where the inside guy was starting, and then you’ve got to run a wider circle once you get there.

“In the white man’s race, the positions have names. The inside lanes are called Beverly Hills, Scarsdale, La Jolla. Or Art's Potomac, upstream from George Washington’s beautiful plantation. And the outside lanes, they’re called Watts, Anacostia and Harlem. Oh, and the South Bronx. That'd be Lane 8.

“We’ve talked a bit about Lane 1, remember? We said if you start in that lane and want to become an entrepreneur, maybe, just maybe, you don't need the guts of a burglar. What about Lane 8? In that lane, you get to attend integrated schools, or so they say. But I’ll let you guess how many White Anglo Saxon Protestants attend public schools in the South Bronx.

“What else do we know about Lane 8? You live in a shit hole. To get there from school, you’ve gotta walk past gang bangers and drug addicts. You see hookers too. Everywhere you look, the hos are out, just letting you know there’s still a few ways left to make money. When you get home, Daddy’s long gone. Mommy’s there, barely literate. Maybe even on drugs. She's trying to get you a square meal and hardly worried if you don't have all the books you need to master your social studies project. Computer? What’s a computer?

“If you’re lucky, you survive childhood. But even if you do, they'll say you’re stupid, though it turns out you might actually have become smart, if you hadn’t grown up in Lane 8.”

Barack Obama didn’t grow up in Lane 8. But – unlike John McCain and George W. Bush – he didn’t grow up in Lane 1 either. A child of a single mother, a man who carries with him the pigment that has for so many represented “lack of intellect,” Barack stands before us as a role model for blacks, Latinos, and other people of color. And a reminder to whites that racism must be torn asunder root and branch.

To the haters out there – the Roves and, yes, even the McCains -- who would seek to continue to belittle Barack as you have the last few weeks … remember how gracefully the speakers at Barack’s convention spoke about the Republican candidate. They questioned his policies, but they pulled punch after punch about his personal character. They treated him as a true American hero.

Well, folks, John McCain is an American hero. But so is Barack Obama. There have been many prisoners of war. And God bless them all. But there have been precious few men and women who have taken the civil rights movement as far along as has Barack Obama. When we criticize his character at this juncture in history, we don’t belittle his dignity, we belittle our own. In the name of all that is holy, let’s not allow that to happen.

SEVEN HOMES, TWO SPEECHES

Just one week ago, John McCain had all the momentum. Then he strangely didn't remember how many homes he owned. That silly little mistake opened the door; it reminded the Democrats that two can play at the attack-politics game. After all, what is attack politics but the willingness and the ability to capitalize on silly little mistakes.

Of course, as we all know, a few little openings like that won't by themselves be enough for the Party of the Donkey to take back the White House. The Democrats first need to unify, and then they need to show WHY they're unified. That required two great speeches. The first would have to be delivered by Hillary Clinton -- she, divisive Hillary, would have to be the unifier. Ironic, but true. Two nights later, Barack would have to explain why all Americans should unify behind him instead of a former war hero who is also a more experienced, more accomplished statesman.

Blissfully, I can report that tonight, Hillary did her job. It was an excellent speech. I found myself wishing she would get off the stage and march right into the studio of "Morning Joe" and tell Mr. Scarborough that if he really thinks she wants John McCain to win this election (like Scarborough has been saying for months), he knows where he can stick it. The proof as to whether Scarborough has been right or not will be played out in the upcoming weeks. Will Hillary become a regular on shows like his and tell America why we need Barack Obama and why we can't afford to have John McCain? Or was this speech a won-hit wonder designed simply to maintain her personal reputation? I think she's earned the benefit of the doubt tonight. I think we can assume that she's going to take her new-found Obamamania on the road. We'll see.

In any event, now it's Barack's turn. Can he show us that he has a second act? Can he regain the same quantum of magic that he brought to his speeches in January? Or, at the very least, can he give us the sense that he is a good man of sound judgment who will identify the country's greatest needs and build one coalition after another in order to meet them?

For the moment, it's not about what WE can do, it's about what HE can do. I can't wait for Thursday night to find out.

THIS YEAR’S OLYMPICS BY THE NUMBERS

Zero – The number of times that Yining Zhang, the eventual gold medalist in women’s table tennis, visibly smiled during the first couple of minutes after she won her semi-final match and clinched a medal. Watching this was absolutely creepy – like the fulfillment of all those sci-fi movies in which man evolves into machine. In this case, it was woman evolving into machine, or perhaps it was just the inevitable consequence of an authoritarian nation that values Olympic gold and de-values humaneness.

One – The number of truly significant tournaments that have now been won by Russian tennis player Elena Dementieva. She’s always had a wonderful game, except for one little thing – she has a pitiful serve. So how in God’s name did she win the gold medal in woman’s tennis? Got me – NBC doesn’t show tennis. They’re too busy showing things like the friggen gymnastics gala (on top of anything else that goes by the name of “gymnastics”). Screw gymnastics. And congrats to Dementieva. Now, if she only can learn how to serve, she might actually add to her 15 minutes of fame.

Two – The number of American relay teams to drop the baton. And on the same day, too. I was reminded of Alan Iverson. (“Practice? You’re talkin’ about practice?”) Yeah, I’m talkin’ about practice – as in that the US Track and Field Team obviously doesn’t see much need for it. This is not exactly the first year we’ve dropped the baton. But it hurt a bit more this year, since we were shut out of the golds in the 100 and 200 meter races. Something tells me that in London in 2012, we’ll figure out a way to at least finish the relays without getting humiliated.

Three – The number of golds won by the Jamaican sprinter aptly named “Bolt.” He certainly gets the “character” award this Olympics – not that he necessarily possesses character, but that he is one. Who slows down intentionally in sprinting the 100 meters? Doesn’t he realize that this little act of stylin’ might prevent him from holding the world record two, three, four, five or ten years down the road? Frankly, he probably did realize that, and quite obviously, he couldn’t care less. He came to China to win three gold medals. And to show the world that it has one bad-ass sprinter. Methinks he succeeded.

Four – The number of medals collectively won by the countries that spawned the following religions: Judaism (Israel 1), Christianity (Israel), Islam (Saudi Arabia 0), Hinduism (India 3), and Buddhism (India). India alone has a billion people and yet won only three medals. Exactly what is going on here – are spirituality and sports completely antithetical?

Five – The number of gold medals in races of 800 meters or longer won by Kenya, topped off by the men’s marathon championship. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, there is nothing more cool in sports than entering an Olympic stadium as the man who is about to win the Olympic Marathon. No athlete could possibly feel such a high as one who runs in an essentially solitary state for 26+ miles, then goes into a tunnel, and finally emerges in the presence of dozens of fans screaming for him and him alone on the last day of an Olympics. These men must have utilized virtually every ounce of their heart and soul on the first 26 miles of the race … or so they thought … but the adrenaline rush supplied by the fans in the stadium couldn’t help but make the last few hundred meters as spiritually uplifting as the first 26 miles was physically depleting. How I envy those gold medal marathon winners.

Six – The number of gold medals won by the Jamaicans in races of 400 meters or less. How is this even possible, given the small size of the country? Is it the coaching? Is it the shoes? Have they upgraded the ganja from when I went there decades back? Crazy, mon.

Seven – The number of diving gold medals won by China. I didn’t even realize there were seven diving events, did you? The Chinese were so superior to the rest of the world in that sport they might as well change the categories: “Non-Chinese Men’s Diving,” “Non-Chinese Women’s Diving,” “Chinese Men’s Diving,” and “Chinese Women’s Diving.” Then maybe we’d see some real excitement.

Eight – Duh. In an Olympics that started on 8/8/8, Michael Phelps dreamed the impossible Olympic dream of eight golds, and damned if the impossible didn’t happen. He scored in every way possible – in blowouts, in a come-from-behind contest with a margin of victory of 1/100th of a second, by standing at the side of the pool watching his teammate outdo a more accomplished rival, and last but certainly not least, by making out with a gorgeous ex-girlfriend of a rival swimmer. This guy had one amazing fortnight. Congrats to my fellow Marylander!

Nine – The number of gold medals won by Japan, which placed them eighth among all nations. The significance of this, of course, is that it tells you exactly where Michael Phelps placed as a nation. In the top nine!

Ten – USA’s winning margin of victory in the total medals count (110 medals to China’s 100).

Fifteen – China’s winning margin of victory in the total gold medals count.

Seriously, we need a single score to determine who “wins” an Olympics so that two nations can’t claim victory when one wins the most medals and another the most golds. Should we count golds as three, silvers two, and bronzes one? Or count golds as four? Or five? Any way you count them – if you’re being reasonable – China “won” their Olympics – at least on the field of play. They made fools of themselves off of the field of play in terms of how they oppressed innocent people for the glory of the tribe, however. It’s difficult to think about the one without the other.

Twenty two – The winning streak of the American softball team that was broken in the gold medal game. But don’t cry. Our loss might have saved the sport from extinction. Apparently, the geniuses of the IOC had planned to get rid of it, in part because the US has won too much for their tastes. Forgive me for sounding like a patriot, but how can they include team handball and not softball? Have you ever watched team handball? Have you ever watched paint dry?

Thirty five – The number of Chinese-born entrants in the woman’s table tennis competition. That’s nearly half of all the athletes in the field. I watched two Chinese-born players compete under the flags of the USA and Congo. Do you get the sense that the “Chinese national sport” isn’t taken seriously anywhere else? It was actually my best sport as a teenager … which tells you a lot about me as an athlete growing up in America.

Seventy two – The number of medals won by the Russians (38 fewer than the US). The funny thing is, when you add up all the other former members of the Soviet Union, Russia would have kicked our butts! Do you think Putin took note of that fact? Sorry for bringing that up.

One hundred and eight -- The number of consecutive matches won by repeat gold medal winners Misty May-Treaner and Kerri Walsh. That is a ridiculous winning streak in any sport. How does one explain it? Have the other competitors been ogling them just like the rest of us? I have no other explanation, so that must be it.