Various Notions, Volume 2: Poll Results; Reverend Wright; U.K. Elections; Fries With That?

HASSLINGTON POLL RESULTS

First of all, here are the results of the recent Hasslington poll, which asked, "If the Democratic race goes to the convention and neither Clinton nor Obama can win the nomination, who would be your 'compromise' choice?"....

Al Gore: 16 votes (33%)
Joe Biden: 12 votes (25%)
Bill Richardson: 8 votes (16%)
Evan Bayh: 5 votes (10%)
(Someone Else): 4 votes (8%)
Dennis Kucinich: 3 votes (6%)
Chris Dodd: 0 votes (0%)

I'm a little surprised that Senator Dodd did not receive a vote. Beyond that, however, it seems as though the views of my readership dovetail with my own views (at least regarding this issue), as I believe that, in alphabetical order, the three strongest "compromise" candidates would be Joe Biden, Al Gore, and Bill Richardson, for very different reasons. Al Gore is probably the strongest simply due to his global stature and the fact that a large percentage of Americans believe we would have been better off if he were inaugurated as our nation's 43rd President back in January of 2001, rather than George W. Bush.

I'm interested in the four "Someone Else" votes. Might one or two of them be for Wesley Clark, Mark Warner, Kathleen Sebelius...?

WHERE WRIGHT WENT WRONG

I am rather depressed to admit that I was discussing the Senator Obama / Reverend Jeremiah Wright connection with a friend of mine recently. I am not embarrassed to admit that I discuss the issues of the day with friends and acquaintances often--of course I believe that to be an essential part of living in this twenty-first century world. No, I was embarrassed instead by the fact that our discussion eventually wound its way down the same media-saturated, relatively superficial path that I often try to avoid. But that's life.

At any rate, I found what my friend had to say on the topic to be both well-constructed and thought-provoking. I will not tell you everything the two of us said (you'd be bored to tears if I did that), but I would like to give you a feel for his take on the issue. The following paragraph represents my friend's viewpoint, and I would hasten to add that it is paraphrased, so any misrepresentations, which I have taken pains to avoid, are my own. As always, it's food for thought, anyway:

"Injustice occurs everywhere in the world, including the United States. But the "Jim Crow" America that Reverend Wright sees is not indicative of the vast, vast majority of today's America and today's Americans. Reverend Wright either cannot or will not get over complaining about the past long enough to notice that one of his own (African-American) parishoners, Senator Obama, is about to be the Democratic nominee for President. Maybe Reverend Wright knows that if his parishoner is elected to the highest office in the land (and still the most influential office in the world), he will have to admit that America continues to make consistent progress regarding the issues of race and ethnicity, and that flies in the face of what he continues to believe. His support for rooting out injustice is honorable and good, but how he continues to go about it proves that time is passing him by more and more each day, and he's finding this fact more and more difficult to deal with."

ENGLAND AND WALES VOTE ON MAY 1

Voters in England and Wales head to the polls tomorrow (well, tomorrow as I write this; perhaps today as you read this), May 1, in order to vote for local council members as well as a few mayors. The last time local elections occurred at such a general level, I was living in England in a full-time capacity, and then-Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labour party, who were losing popularity and hoping to get away with a metaphorical slap in the face, got a metaphorical uppercut to the jaw instead. Labour lost a lot of local seats, and it was another in a series of indications that Mr. Blair was becoming an electoral handicap (whereas in, say, the late '90s he was an electoral asset). His premiership did not last long afterwards, as he stepped down "voluntarily," prior to having to be voted out of Number 10 Downing Street by his own party (which is what happened in an embarrassing manner to Margaret Thatcher in 1990). Mr. Blair was subsequently replaced by Gordon Brown last summer.

Gordon Brown is in trouble himself, as the political capital he impressively built in the first three months of his premiership (last summer) has collapsed due to multiple factors, economic and otherwise. (These local elections, therefore, mean a lot to his premiership insofar as voting momentum is concerned, despite the fact that they do not affect the make-up of Britain's national parliament.) Mr. Brown is hoping that his party's inevitable losses in council seats is "minimal"--which might mean the loss of only a few hundred seats. If, on the other hand, Labour gets pounded into the dirt again, it could spell further trouble for Mr. Brown, who many folks think is rather ineffectual as Prime Minister (under Mr. Blair's decade-long premiership Mr. Brown was a powerful, if controversial, Chancellor of the Exchequer, a position often considered second in influence only to the Prime Minister in British government). Actually, Mr. Brown might be suffering politically due more to circumstances such as the British fallout from the weakening U.S. economy and from people tiring of eleven years of Labour's national leadership.

By the way, these local elections in England and Wales mark the eleventh anniversary of Labour's 1997 national election victory, which swept eighteen years of Tory leadership away. The make-up of the national parliament's leadership may--I emphasize "may"--be poised to turn back in the Torys' direction in the next general election (to be held whenever the government decides, sometime before June of 2010), though obviously Mr. Brown hopes that this will not be the case. If he is perceived as a major electoral liability to his own party prior to the general election, they might decide to take drastic action and remove Mr. Brown in favor of someone else, though I doubt that will happen. If it does happen, I would recommend that Foreign Secretary David Milliband be inserted into the pre-election premiership; he's young (in his 40s), energetic, intelligent, and compelling in television interviews--and his foreign policy credentials are now impressive.

One way or the other, Tory Leader David Cameron is benefitting from recent events....

KEN VS. BORIS: LET THE VOTING (COMPLICATIONS) COMMENCE!

Voters in London, England are not just voting for local councillors, but for the position of Mayor of London, as well. And for the first time in quite some time, this year's race may come down to the wire. Under normal circumsances, that would be enough to set tongues wagging, but this year's mayoral election features a few added bonuses that are sure to have people discussing the election for months to come.

First of all, the two individuals with a chance to win the post, Ken Livingstone of the Labour Party and Boris Johnson of the Tory party, are not exactly "normal," even as far as politicians go. Mr. Livinstone is seeking re-election to the post, and as the current, multiple-term Mayor of London, he has been largely impressive on improving infrastructure and transportation needs in the city. He also has been mired by suggestions of scandal (nothing politically unusual there), his self-regard seems to have grown exponentially of late (again, nothing politically unusual), and he has a penchant for waxing lyrical in public about the fact that he doesn't flush his toilet if he only urinates (apparently, and hopefully, he does flush his toilet when he takes the proverbial "Number Two"). He is also known to pontificate on what he perceives as the wonderful qualities of his "friend" Hugo Chavez. And Boris Johnson is...well, let's just say that he makes Mr. Livingstone's eccentricities look fairly mild by comparison.

Complicating matters further is the fact that London will be using a "first and second choice" ballot for the mayoral race. This means that voters will select the candidate they prefer to be the mayor in one column, and then select the candidate who represents their second choice for the post in the next column. Normally this second column would not matter, as Mr. Livingstone has won handily in the past. This year, however, Mr. Livingstone and Mr. Johnson are running so close that, with several other minor candidate names on the ballot (as well as a member of the Liberal Democrat party, the other major national party, on the ballot), neither is likely to win a majority of the overall first preference vote. So--stay with me here--the second choices of those who voted for the minor party candidates will most likely determine which of the two gentlemen wins.

Oh, the pandering by these guys and their folks toward the minor party supporters that must be occurring behind the scenes must be extraordinary, particularly given the pandering that is occurring in public....

For his part, the Liberal Democrat candidate, Brian Paddick, seems content to publicly dislike both Mr. Livingstone and Mr. Johnson.

p.s. If Mr. Johnson pulls off a victory, it would be a windfall for Tory Leader David Cameron, who has openly supported him. (Prime Minister Brown has never seemed to like Mr. Livingstone.)

WHO CARES IF THEY DRINK FINE WINE OR MILLER HIGH LIFE...OR BOTH?

Kudos to Newsweek's Evan Thomas, Holly Bailey, and Richard Wolffe for their recent article (published in the May 5, 2008 edition of the magazine) on the U.S. presidential elections for bringing up the point that these presidential candidates have "the misfortune to run for the presidency in an age when reporters are watching, it seems, every time the candidate picks up a fork or orders a meal." Now, many people have pointed that out, but these three writers go on to discuss the dining and/or drinking habits of past presidents in order to give us a little more historical perspective on this topic.

They insinuate, rightly, that if many fine former presidents were scrutinized to such an extent--to determine whether or not we ought to label them "elite"--they would never have been elected. For instance, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who led the United States through the Great Depression and the vast majority of World War II with steely determination, regularly drank martinis ("...beer--what's that?...") and used a cigarette holder (...oh, dear...) when he smoked. (And his accent, according to a class of British kids I taught several years ago who heard recordings of him speaking, sounded awfully upper-crust British in inflection.) For his part, when he had a choice, John F. Kennedy drank daiquiris. And so on.

Who cares what these politicians eat and/or drink? Who cares, for instance, if Senator Obama didn't eat the majority of french fries that came with his cheesesteak at a recent campaign stop in Pennsylvania? Who cares if he (apparently) dislikes french fries? What does it matter?

Oh, yeah, I forgot--we demand that these presidential candidates be "just like us." (Which now evidently extends to their dining habits.) Well, folks, have you taken a look around of late? No one is "just like" you. No one. Everyone has their quirks and eccentricities and particular habits and so forth. So get over it. And, if by "just like us" we mean that they are like us in a "lowest-common-denominator" manner, can you imagine what their dining habits would be? Would we really care to be represented on the world stage in such a manner? I think not.

So pass those fries over, Senator Obama. I'll eat them (and I'd still vote for you).

And this is coming from me--a guy who likes fine red wines, but who nonetheless has a penchant for Miller High Life....

FINALLY, I'M WAITING ON SOME ACTION, EUGENE

I'm holding out hope that Eugene Robinson somehow saw my plea (from my previous post, below) for him to influence his fellow U.S. media colleagues in order to stop them from using the phrase "thrown under the bus" for, say, a six month cooling-off period. C'mon, Eugene, you can do it--you can affect positive vocabulary-related change in America.