By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

The most important story in the world today is that Michael Jackson remains dead. That's pretty much what I can glean from flipping between the 24-hour news MJ networks this morning (I think one of them has officially changed its name to MJNBC). It makes me wonder what a politician would have to do to punch through the Jacksonalia and get noticed for more than a brief oh yeah, other things are going on in the world today moment. A member of Congress streaking the House floor? Barack Obama ceding Alaska back to the Russians (Sarah Palin really could see Russia from her porch then)? Click on the comments section below and weigh in with your idea of how a pol could get on the news today (without using Michael Jackson).

This much I know: If I were a pol hiding a scandal, I'd get it out today when no one is paying attention. Yes, it's true that I have on several occasions hunted the most dangerous game in Central Park, but...

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

While it's probably too much to hope that Sarah Palin (or, really, most politicians) be governed by rules of logic and/or intellectual honesty, the lame duck Alaska governor's resignation reasoning (such as it was) all but eliminated a future presidential run for herself.

If Sarah Palin truly does plan to stay in politics, her resignation speech should have been a memorable philosophical statement akin to Ronald Reagan's speech on behalf of Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential campaign. The Gipper's speech was an eloquent and enduring summation of his political philosophy and while it did little to help his candidate, it catapulted him onto the national political stage and laid out his governing vision. It was known among his staff simply as "the speech" and he would give variations of it for the rest of his career.

If Palin's speech proves memorable, it will be in the way that Richard Nixon's 1962 "You won't have Nixon to kick around any more" speech endures. Palin's resignation speech was a strange hodgepodge, a mix of self-congratulatory horn-tooting, sound-bites and catch-phrases, unexplained political shorthand references ("that liberal 9th circuit!") and awkward ad-libs that left the impression of someone of such towering hubris that she did not think something so mundane as practicing the speech was necessary. When message is secondary to messenger practice may seem a waste of precious time. But Palin would do well to learn a lesson from the Great Commmunicator: Reagan made speech-giving look easy because he was a great natural talent, but also because he worked very hard at it and practiced a great deal. As I recount in White House Ghosts, would sit in the Oval Office as TV crews were setting up around him and quietly re-read his speech.

Political success is about hard work and working hard. And progress is made through compromise. But in Friday's speech Palin dismissed hard work and compromise as … the quitter's way out.

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

Jack made a good point this morning about the Tiger Woods-Jim Brown squabble. (Squabble? Has El Tigre actually said anything? Can you have a one-sided squabble?) Brown thinks Woods needs to do more in a social activism sense, and by do more he means speak up—be vocal, take a controversial stand (presumably safe stands are not what he's talking about), get in people's faces. (Be, in other words, Jim Brown.) As Jack (and, in the Post, Michael Wilbon) points out, Woods has made huge contributions—substantive and symbolic—to disadvantaged kids.

But beyond Woods's actual contributions lies the question of whether it makes sense for him to start weighing in vocally on political or social justice issues. And more broadly whether it makes sense for any athlete (or other kind of entertainer) to do so. And there are pretty good reasons for Tiger to keep his political views to himself. As Mike Florio of ProFootballTalk (now with peacock feathers!) opined last week:

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

Unlike many, I found Gov. Mark Sanford's initial press conference refreshing because he came across as a struggling human being rather than a politician reading the contrition script. But the contrition script has one redeeming line—the one that goes, And with that, I'm not going to discuss this any more. It's between me, my wife, and our family. Eschewing that line, Sanford has started behaving like a reality-TV show contestant who has spent his life dreaming of being in front of a television camera.

He's part of a star-crossed love story. He's found his soul-mate but, bravely, will try to fall back in love with his wife. (Does that remind anyone else of gays who subject themselves to heterosexual reprogramming on the theory that if they try hard enough they can become straight?) He crossed lines with other, other women but never the "ultimate line." What lines is he talking about? I'm sure he'll go into great detail in his next interview. He's become like a bizarro version of Bill Clinton, with his legalistic definitions of what constituted sex. WashPo's Ruth Marcus smartly points out that the "ultimate line is the one between thinking and doing."

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

I wrote earlier noting that the imminent arrival of Sen. Al Franken does not mean that the Democrats will be able to start running amok in Washington because the Senate Democratic caucus covers a relatively broad ideological spectrum. CQ's David Nather makes the same point, using a fresh Joe Lieberman interview to underscore the point. Lieberman told the New Haven Independent that he is "skeptical" of a public option in healthcare. Remember that all it takes is one member to puncture the "filibuster-proof majority."

And as Nather points out, this lesson seems to be lost on the Democrats' base:

"Let's do what the American people have asked Democrats to do, and let's not use any excuses like this 60-vote nonsense, which is now obviously no longer an issue," Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos, said on MSNBC yesterday.

Sure, the statement proves Moulitsas doesn't really understand the Senate. But there are lots of people who will agree with him. Until now, Democrats have used their lack of 60 votes to explain why they have to make concessions to Republicans in the Senate. Now, it's going to be a lot harder to explain any concessions—even though there will be times when they still have to make them.

Forget a filibuster-proof majority. How about a Lieberman-proof majority?

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

Al Franken's arrival as the junior senator from Minnesota will give the Democrats a much-ballyhooed 60th vote and "filibuster-proof" majority. Depending on your ideological persuasion that means that there will be no check on Democratic big government malevolence or that with their help Obama can actually start to get things done—no more pussy-footing around with the Party of No.

Don't buy the hype.